Trade Union Bill, 1941—Report and Final Stages.
On behalf of Senator Cummins and Senator Campbell I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 4, Section 6, sub-section (2), line 16, to delete the words "ten pounds" and substitute therefor the words "one pound"; and in line 17 to delete the words "one pound" and substitute therefor the words "five shillings".
The amendment endeavours to mitigate what would be a hardship if the Bill is passed and operates at all. The Bill must operate by the co-operation of the various parties concerned but there is no provision in it by which the fines could be mitigated. The section states that a penalty of £10 may be imposed on members of a committee of management and £1 for every day in the case of a continuing offence. It does not seem to me that the offence is one to demand such heavy penalties. In some cases, the offence might be due to ignorance on the part of parties concerned, and the amendment endeavours to mitigate the hardship that would be thereby imposed.
I could not accept the amendment. I am afraid the Senator was under a misapprehension when he said that the section as it stands makes no provision for mitigation, presumably in a case where the offence is trivial. It is true that there is no provision in the section for mitigation, but what is there is the very important fact that the sum mentioned is the limit. It definitely fixes the limit of the fine which may be imposed, but it does not prescribe that a fine of £10 is to be imposed in every case. We may take it that the maximum fine would be only imposed where the circumstances were such that in the opinion of the court adjudicating on the matter the maximum penalty was merited. Accordingly, I do not think the amendment should be pressed. We may leave it to the good sense of the court to decide to impose even so low a fine as is suggested in the amendment.
Should it not be the opinion that the fine should be a nominal one?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 2:—
In page 4, Section 6, before sub-section (8), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(8) Nothing in this section shall render it unlawful for any person or group of persons to mediate in a trade dispute or to bring together the parties in a trade dispute with a view to reaching an amicable settlement.
I am asking the Seanad to adopt this amendment in order to meet the case which was made on the Second Reading in an amendment originally down in the name of Senator Douglas, which I also put down in a modified form. I ask the House to accept the amendment as an experiment. Frankly, I am afraid that it may leave the way open to evasion and I want, in that connection, to make it clear that if the new sub-section be availed of to render the main principle of the section nugatory, it may be necessary to introduce amending legislation. However, I am hoping that the measure will be accepted by the trade union movement as a whole in the spirit in which it has been introduced by the Government, and that the rather loose terminology which has necessarily been used here will not be abused, but that the very fine distinction which exists between mediation and negotiation, will be generally observed. This amendment, at any rate, will enable public-spirited persons and citizens—men of goodwill and good intent—to bring parties together in a case where, a dispute having broken out, they have reason to believe their good offices would be effective in bringing about peace.
As the original proposer, I am quite satisfied with the amendment as it stands. The only thing I would add is that I am glad that the Minister has taken the risk as, assuming that it was necessary, the absence of this provision might have opened the door to abuse by people who claimed to be mediators for the purpose of the Bill. I think this provision is more likely to make the Bill a success than otherwise.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 4, Section 6, sub-section (8), line 56, to delete the word "six" and substitute therefor the word "twelve".
This is an attempt to give the Bill some savour of conciliation and to give those very intimately concerned an opportunity to put their house in order. Surely six months is a very short time and there is no such immediate urgency and necessity that we should confine ourselves to that short period. There is a very good case for asking that 12 months be substituted in order to show how willing, active and able they are to do this. Perhaps the Minister would consider this more favourably than he did the first amendment. That is the case for the amendment and I think the Minister should accept it.
I would like to meet the Senator in regard to this matter, but the real point is that probably the most important provisions in the Bill— if it develops as I hope it will develop —are the provisions relating to the setting up of a tribunal. That tribunal cannot be set up until six months after Part II of the Act has been put into operation. Under the sub-section as it stands, the Minister cannot put Part II into operation until six months have elapsed after the passage of the Bill. I should like to emphasise in that connection that it is not the present intention—I can say that, I think, for the present Minister for Industry and Commerce, as I would have said it very emphatically for myself—of the Government to rush this through and try to put this Part into operation somewhat inconsequently, as I said on the previous stage. On the contrary, it is the intention to listen to reasonable representations and give to the trade union movement as a whole reasonable time to consider what it must do to comply with the terms of the Bill. It may happen that, having reconsidered the whole matter in a somewhat calmer frame of mind than appears to prevail at present and having seen that many fears expressed when the Bill was issued first have very little, if any, foundation, the responsible trade union leaders may like to see the Bill in operation in six months or in some shorter period than 12 months. Accordingly, I should like that the Minister's hands should be free to put Part II of the measure into operation within six months, if it is felt by those most affected by the Bill that this would be desirable.
If I accept Senator Hogan's amendment—and I am not very rigidly opposed to it—it means that the Minister's hands necessarily will be tied, and that he may have to wait a full six months, which would defer the setting up of the trade union tribunal—a very important part of the measure—for at least 18 months. In the circumstances of the time and the changing conditions of our country, it might be too long to wait, and while I am not unwilling to meet this, if it is pressed, I am suggesting that it is not expedient to press it, and that on the whole it is better to trust to the good intentions of the Minister and to the statement which I have made in the Dáil, and am making here again, that reasonable time will be given, and that it is not the intention to put this into operation the moment the prescribed period elapses, but to give the trade union movement an opportunity to consider the position. Any representations which the movement might make in regard to the date of the putting into operation of this measure will. I am sure, be considered very sympathetically. In view of that, I would suggest that it is not expedient to tie the Minister's hands in the way this amendment would tie them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 5, Section 8, sub-section (1), lines 15-16, to delete paragraph (a).
I propose to deal with amendments Nos. 5 and 6 in conjunction with this amendment as they come together on this section. The purpose of the section is in relation to the Schedule and makes its variation dependent on the continuance of the Emergency Powers Act. We think that the unions may be in very difficult financial circumstances even immediately after the cessation of the Emergency Powers Act, and that time should be given to the unions to enable them to reach a financial position in which they could meet any variation which may occur. Therefore, it is suggested in this amendment that it is necessary to take out paragraph (a). In amendment No. 5 it is suggested that in paragraph (b) the words "referable to the war in which the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is now engaged" be deleted. Amendment No. 6 suggests the deletion, in sub-section (2) of this section, of the words "save that no such order shall have effect after the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, has ceased to be in force". The deletion of these paragraphs would make the section better from the standpoint of the trade unions concerned. Many of these unions may suffer from extra unemployment and that would deplete their funds and make them unable to meet their obligations immediately. In these circumstances it is suggested that the deletion of these portions of the section would enable the unions to meet the obligations imposed on them.
If these amendments were accepted, it would mean, in effect, that the minimum deposit might be reduced to £250, irrespective of any special conditions which existed and seemed to make it desirable that such a reduction should be granted by the Minister. I think that this would be to nullify one of the principal provisions of the Bill and, accordingly, I could not accept it. But I think I have done something to meet the point which Senator Lynch has made in the amendment which I am proposing, which will allow an order made under this sub-section to have currency of 12 months after the Emergency Powers Act has ceased to have effect I think that is as far as we can go.
The subsequent amendment by the Minister certainly extends the period. The question is whether that period of 12 months will be adequate. Of course, that will be determined by the circumstances of the time and the circumstances of the unions concerned but it certainly extends the period at all events by that amount of time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.
Government amendment No. 7:—
In page 5, section 8, in sub-section (2), to insert in line 32 before the word "Emergency" the words "expiration of 12 months after the".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 5, Section 11, sub-section (1), after the word "licences" in line 55 to insert the words "and to registered trade unions which are excepted bodies under the terms of Section 6 of this Act."
During the discussion that took place on an amendment which I moved on the last occasion in regard to the cross-Channel unions the Minister stated and, I think, some of the Senators who spoke on the discussion also used the argument, that no rights which the unions possessed were being taken from them; although they were not given certain privileges which were being given to the other unions, still, they were not being deprived of any rights. But that is not the case so far as the ordinary unions which are listed here as excepted bodies are concerned. Certain rights are being taken from them if they remain as excepted bodies and if they choose—or if they can afford to choose—to become an authorised union they are not getting the rights and privileges which are extended to other Irish unions. The refusal of the Minister to accept an amendment which I had down to Section 34 on the last occasion shows that. I tried during the discussion on this Bill to find what were the considerations that induced the Minister to make teaching organisations excepted bodies and the only reason vouchsafed by the Minister was that it was felt that there was no reason to compel any association which had secured recognition from the Minister for Education as representing teachers to take out a negotiation licence. In other words, that means that the Minister for Education wished to have a free hand, to have a privilege which is not being granted to any other employer, to recognise any body of teachers that he thinks ought to be recognised, irrespective of whether they are a break-away union or a mushroom union or anything else. If any of these teachers' organisations which are excepted bodies choose—or if they can afford, perhaps, would be a better word—to become an authorised union they can carry on negotiations but they will not be given the sole right to organise the teachers of a particular class, as may happen in the case of other Irish unions. If they remain as excepted bodies—and, as I say, except in regard to one or two of the unions I think we will have no other choice—then the rights which they at present possess and the protection which is at present afforded to them under the Trade Disputes Act will be denied them and, for all practical purposes, if that is the case, they may as well shut up shop because they cannot carry on any ordinary trade union activities without incurring very grave risk for the organisation, for the members and officials of the organisation, unless they are afforded that protection.
It is commonly thought that the Trade Disputes Act of 1906 does nothing more than give a union the right to strike, and to protect its members and give them permission to picket during a strike, but that is not the case. I might say that, so far as teaching organisations are concerned, they are not very prone to strikes. In the 75 years of the existence of the National Teachers' Organisation there was certainly never anything in the nature of a general strike. There was a demonstration by way of a one-day strike once or twice, once in the time of the British authorities. It was only adopted as a desperate remedy, and it had its effect. The secondary teachers, who are much more respectable, and certainly much more conservative than national teachers, were forced on an occasion to strike as the only means of enforcing their just rights. But, as I say, it is a very rare occurrence among teachers or teaching organisations— certainly anything in the nature of a general strike. There may be occasions when it may be necessary, as a final and the only remedy in an individual case to protect the rights of an individual member. Cases have occurred where action of that kind had to be threatened but did not actually take place to protect the rights of individual members. But what I am mainly concerned with is the protection of the union and the members and officials of the union in carrying on their ordinary activities.
It may occur, for instance, that actions for libel would be taken—and successful actions for libel—against a trade union or against its officials. I have a case in mind where an action was threatened against a union because, through inadvertence, a letter went out from the head office of the union to the branch secretary saying that a member who had applied for benefit to the head office or to a branch of the head office was not a member of the union, that he had lapsed. As it turned out, that was not the case and the member threatened action for libel against the officials. I suppose only for the protection afforded by the Trade Disputes Act he could have a successful action. The members of the union, the officials of the union and the union itself, if they are not afforded this protection, will be responsible for all the acts of the various officials and branch secretaries throughout the country. The particular union to which I belong has 200 branch secretaries and they simply could not carry on their ordinary trade union activities if they are not afforded this protection.
No reason has been given up to the present why it is thought necessary to deprive these unions which, for reasons of the Minister's own, are excepted bodies, of the protection of the Trade Disputes Act if they choose to remain excepted bodies and, as I say, it is the only choice left to a considerable number of them. Take the organisation for which I am speaking at the moment directly, of which I am an official. That organisation, if it wants to carry on its ordinary trade union activities, which it has carried on for a great number of years, must, perforce, become an authorised trade union. That means that it must find, I think, £6,000 or £8,000.
It may be said that is easily found and that it will constitute no hardship to a large union like ours, but I suggest it would. Our organisation has, of late years especially, provided extensive benefits for members who are ill. Teachers are the only public officials who, while they are ill, have to provide and pay their substitutes. That is a very great hardship on teachers, to have to pay substitutes when they want money most. The organisation sets itself out to help these people as well as it can and it pays something like £10,000 a year out of its funds to help teachers to meet the expenses which they are forced to incur through the failure of the Government to do for them what it does for civil servants and for other officials.
Quite recently, in order to show that our organisation was anxious to help the people—possibly Senators know all about this—we gave the Government an interest-free loan of £10,000 for the period of the emergency. Until the emergency is over that money is lost to us. We have 2,000 members in the North of Ireland and we had to make a similar proportionate loan to the North. Under the terms of this Bill the organisation will have to pay out £6,000 or £8,000 and it will have no control over that money. Once it is paid into the courts we will have no control over it. If we take it out we cease to be an authorised union. We can use the interest of it, but we cannot use the main sum; it is a frozen loan, in fact. I suggest that that does constitute a hardship.
The Minister has chosen, for reasons of his own, to make the teaching organisations excepted bodies. What he is proposing to give with one hand he is taking away with the other; as a matter of fact, he is taking much more away with the other hand in this case. He is depriving them of rights which they possess unless they become authorised bodies. I am speaking now of teaching organisations, and there is quite a number of them. At least two are fairly large unions, but there are small unions with limited membership and these carry on negotiations through lawyers from time to time. They cannot afford to become authorised unions, as they have not sufficient funds. They have certain rights which will now be taken from them.
Reference was made by the Minister and by Senators to small craft unions which could not afford to pay deposits and the Minister inserted sub-section (6) so that, if he is satisfied, a union may be allowed to carry on negotiations, a small union that could not afford to find the £1,000 deposit. These small craft unions may become excepted bodies if the Minister is satisfied that they should become so excepted. But if he does grant them that privilege he is denying them the rights that they possess under the Trade Disputes Act. That will definitely be the position unless my amendment is accepted, because the protection of the Trade Disputes Act will apply only to bodies that are authorised trade unions. The Minister has, in response to representations made, agreed to put in sub-section (6) in Section 6, giving him the power, should he think it right, to recognise these small craft unions, that cannot afford to become authorised bodies, as excepted bodies. But they, too, will be deprived of the right to protection which the Trade Disputes Act gives them. I do not know what is to be gained by that. I do not know what would be the disadvantage to the main object of the Bill if the teaching organisation and the small craft unions were afforded the protection they now have and always have had.
It is a serious matter to take that protection away; in fact, it puts them out of action and they would be incurring the gravest possible risk if they carried on their ordinary trade union activities unless they were afforded the protection of that Act. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment. I am only asking this for Irish trade unions registered in this country. I am asking that they, too, should be given the protection of that Act even though they may remain as excepted bodies. I suggest that nothing will be lost to the Bill if the amendment is accepted. I submit that the Minister would be inflicting grave hardship on all of these unions if the section, as it stands, is allowed to remain.
This amendment goes to the very heart of the Bill and, if we were to accept it, I think the only consequence would be that we could not proceed with the measure. When the Bill was introduced one of the arguments most frequently used against it was the allegation that Section 6, with the provision it contains to save the natural right of persons to negotiate with each other as to the terms upon which they might enter into the relationship of employer and employee, would encourage the formation of house unions or group unions here. The criticism was shown to be unfounded when attention was directed to Section 11, which is a very definite discouragement to the formation of house unions. Senator O'Connell would now propose, in effect, to delete Section 11 in so far as it applies to registered trade unions which are excepted bodies. But all the bodies referred to here, with the exception, perhaps, of the body referred to in paragraph (a) of sub-section (3), and the Agricultural Wages Board and Trade Board, could very simply convert themselves, as the law stands, into registered trade unions. They want to get only seven people.
Some of them are registered trade unions.
Some of them are, but some of the other bodies referred to here are not yet in existence and may never be. For instance, a body such as is envisaged, but not contemplated in sub-section (4), could convert itself without any difficulty whatever into a registered trade union and, if it were a house or group union, as has been suggested, all the criticisms levelled against the Bill under that head would be justified, if we accepted this amendment.
I do not think that any great case has been made by Senator O'Connell in relation to the organisation with which he is immediately connected on the ground that it would occasion hardship to that organisation. We have been told that the organisation has substantial funds. It has, very patriotically and in a very public-spirited way, offered no less than £10,000 of its funds as a loan, free of interest, to the Government.
That was before this Bill was introduced.
At any rate, I assume that the Government's promise to repay is a gilt-edged one, and, with this promise to repay in its possession, I am sure there will be no difficulty in the Irish National Teachers' Organisation negotiating with its bankers for the provision of sufficient accommodation to enable it to make the deposit prescribed in the Bill. It is quite true that many of the smaller unions are not in that position. We cannot help it. We have to choose whether we will encourage, as I think we would encourage, the formation of this particular type of organisation which we are told is so obnoxious to the trade union movement, or whether these bodies which choose to become excepted bodies, or to remain excepted bodies, will be subject to the disqualifications of Section 11. In these circumstances, I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 9.
In page 6, Section 12, in sub-section (1), to delete all words from and including the word "such" in line 25 to and including the word "hours" in line 26 and substitute therefor the words "such trade union shall, in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the Minister, keep at its office such register of members open."
This amendment is introduced to meet the point made by Senator Campbell that the hours at which the register should be open to inspection should be hours which would be normally convenient for the trade union concerned, and should be hours which would not impede it in carrying out its ordinary work. It is the intention, of course, that the regulations to be prescribed by the Minister under this section will be regulations agreed as between the Minister and the trade unions generally.
There is an amendment further down on the list dealing with this matter.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Yes. Amendment No. 13 is the same.
One is an amendment to Section 12 and the other to Section 13.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
One implies the other, I suppose.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 6, Section 12, sub-section (2), line 40, to delete the words "five pounds" and substitute therefor the words "one pound"; and in line 41 to delete the words "one pound" and substitute the words "five shillings."
Whatever justification the Minister could advance for maintaining the amount of the fine in Section 6, there does not seem to be any substantial reason why this comparatively large fine should be inflicted in this case. This deals with the purely administrative work of a trade union, and to seek to impose that large fine on an official because there has been failure to comply with the provision of the sub-section seems to me very excessive and harsh. The Minister will agree that it is purely administrative work and to fine a person for failing to do that work seems to be rather harsh. I think the Minister might easily reduce the amount of the fine to the figure set out in my amendment.
I must again point out to the Senator that the £5 fine is not a prescribed fine, but that it fixes the maximum fine which may be imposed. I think it would be only reasonable to leave the court with a discretion in this matter as in the others.
Is it not true that our experience of the courts is that judges never impose a maximum fine for a first offence, and rarely indeed for any offence at all?
I am afraid the Senator has never appeared before them. If he had, he might have a different story to tell.
That is not my line of experiment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 6, Section 12, to delete sub-section (3).
Trade unions resent very much the encroachment of any people having no direct interest in the funds of the trade union and they object to authorising the Minister at any time to allow a person to go in and inspect a register. We fail to see what it accomplishes and why any interfering person should get the right to inspect a trade union register. In the same way, will the Minister be empowered to authorise a person like me to go in and inspect an employer's register and to make myself a nuisance in the employer's office?
I could play that role as well as anybody else, if I wanted to. We fail to see that there is any justification whatever for the paragraph and we think it might be deleted without in any way impairing the Bill. We are jealous of our affairs and do not want uninterested people having the right, through the Minister, of course, to come in and inspect trade union registers. They are not very complicated; they are very simple; but, at the same time, we have rights and we want to maintain them. Every member of a union, having a direct interest in the funds of a union, has the right at all times during normal hours to go in and inspect the register of his trade union. That is a privilege which we think should not be extended to people with no direct interest in the funds or affairs of a union.
On the last stage of the Bill, this matter was argued very fully and I pointed out that, under Section 34, it is possible for a person who is not a member of the particular trade union whose register is to be inspected, but who is a member of another union, to have a bona-fide interest in inspecting the register of, say, a competing union, if he has reason to believe that the union is violating a determination granted by the tribunal. It was mainly with that position in mind that this proposal permitting registers to be inspected was put into the Bill. I think it is a very useful provision, because, if we did not have this simple means of determining whether a determination of the tribunal was being violated or not, we should have prolonged lawsuits and, I think, intensified bitterness. Moreover, the temptation to evade the findings of the tribunal would be the greater. When there is this simple way of ascertaining the facts in the matter, I think there will be no such temptation for a union to go out and disregard the determination of the tribunal, because they will know that the fact whether they are doing that or not can be readily ascertained and proved.
In these circumstances, I think it would be a great pity to abolish the provision which gives the Minister power to authorise a person who, he is satisfied, has a bona fide interest in inspecting the register the right to inspect it. Now, the Minister is not going to allow—I am sure no Minister would allow—a provision of this sort to be used vexatiously. I am sure he would have to be fully satisfied that such a bona fide interest existed before he granted the right to an outsider— and when I say an outsider I mean a member of another union—to go in and inspect a trade union register. In these circumstances, I think that Senator Foran, and trade unionists generally, might feel quite assured that no Minister would allow this power to be used vexatiously in the way it has been suggested here.
The Minister has not met the question that I put to him at all. Nobody has the right to go in and inspect the employers' register. We are suggesting that the proper person to inspect the register of a trade union is an official of the Department of Industry and Commerce.
This applies to a trade union representing employers as well as to a trade union representing employees.
Can an outsider go in and inspect the register of employers?
The Senator put a point to me which, he says, I did not answer it. I was about to say that it would be very difficult for me at this stage to conceive that the Senator would, in the circumstances he mentioned, have a bona fide interest in inspecting the register of a trade union of employers, but if he were able to satisfy me that, in fact, he had such a bona fide interest, then he would be entitled to inspect the register. But the main thing about it is that it might be very difficult say for a member of an employees' trade union or a workers' trade union to satisfy the Minister that he had that bona fide interest in inspecting the register of an employers' trade union, and vice versa it might be very difficult for a member of a trade union representing employers to satisfy the Minister that he had a bona fide interest in inspecting the register of a workers' trade union.
The Minister said that if I wanted to see the employers' register I would have to convince him that I had a bona fide interest in doing so. Suppose we were going to have a quarrel with employers, we might like to know their strength—vice versa they might like to know our strength—and on that ground could we say that we had a bona fide interest in seeing the register? At any rate, we are of the opinion that the proper person to inspect the register is an official of the Department. If there is any question of doubt about the register or about some finding of the tribunal, surely it is only right and proper that the Department should send an official, who is neutral in the matter, to inspect. He would be likely to do the right thing, and certainly would cause the minimum of inconvenience to the trade union concerned.
Might I point out to Senator Foran, in amplification of what the Minister has said about the employers' register, that the vast majority of employers are limited companies, whether public or private, and that being so, their list of shareholders is, without the permission of any Minister, available to the public. The list can be inspected and examined on payment of 1/-. Further, all information that companies are obliged by statute to send to the Companies' Office is equally available to the public.
Trade unions are in the same position. They are obliged to send in returns to the Department at stated periods, and the information contained in these returns may be inspected by the public at a charge of 1/- or 1/6. Therefore, Senator Douglas has not told me anything that I did not know already. When I ask, have I the right to go to an employer's office and inspect his register, I know quite well that I have not.
A register of shareholders has to be sent to the Department each year and, in the case of limited companies, whether public or private, that return is available to the public on the payment of 1/-.
I remember the question being asked on one occasion: What is offensive language? The definition given was that offensive language has been used to a man when he thinks he has been offended. The Committee Stage discussion on the amendment of this particular sub-section rather convinced me that, while the Minister is endeavouring to do something that he thinks ought to be done, the objection on the part of trade unionists to this particular form of inspection is a valid one, and that the power given under this sub-section is likely to lead not to smooth working but rather to friction. The only example given by the Minister struck me —an outsider—as one likely to lead to friction—namely, that a member of a rival trade union should be authorised to inspect the books of a trade union with which he is at loggerheads. The Minister must satisfy himself, or rather some official in the Minister's Department must satisfy himself, that the applicant has a bona fide right. Surely he might as well go and do the inspection himself and save all that waste of time.
A great many things are done in practice every day which are not subject to statutory right, and which you would not like to give people a statutory right to. For example, in the office of this House, and in the Dáil office the members of the public are given very great facilities. In the case of the Bill which we finished to-day interested parties could come in and get copies of the amendments, and all the information they want, but it would be quite a different thing to frame a section in a Bill giving a statutory right to certain persons as against the Clerk of the Dáil or the Clerk of the Seanad. That is the position here. According to Senator Campbell, the trade unions are quite reasonable in allowing certain inspections to take place, and, apparently, have no objection to persons coming along and inspecting their books for a certain purpose, but they do not like this particular provision. While it may not be a matter of very great importance, it seems to me that when they do not like this provision, and when, on the Minister's example, it is not likely to lead to smooth working but rather to friction, it might be as well perhaps if the Minister were to take the power to himself, as Senator Foran has suggested, rather than give it to somebody else. If the Minister were to do that, I do not think he would lose anything in the end, and whatever he did lose in one way he could certainly gain in another.
Question put.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Will the Senators who are demanding a division please rise?
Senators Foran, E. Lynch, Hogan and O'Connell rose.
Amendment declared lost, Senators Foran, E. Lynch, Hogan and O'Connell to be recorded as dissenting.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
Government amendment No. 13:—
In page 7, Section 13, in sub-section (1), to delete all words from and including the word "such" in line 32 to and including the word "hours" in line 33, and substitute therefor the words "such trade union shall, in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the Minister, keep at the said office such register of members open".
This amendment proposes to insert in Section 13 the same provision as we have inserted in Section 12 for inspection of the register in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the Minister.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 not moved.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In page 9, Section 15, sub-section (1), line 10, to delete the word "two" and substitute therefor the word "six".
I have a good case for asking the Minister to extend the period from two months to six months. There may be a great deal of difficulty in finding the necessary amount of money. There may be unemployment and it may be necessary to strike a levy in order to raise the required amount. The proposal in the amendment is reasonable and I ask the Minister to accept it.
I should be prepared to meet the Senator to some extent but I think that the proposed period of six months is rather long. I think that a period of three months would be more reasonable. Trade unions would, then, have a quarter in which to make the necessary arrangements. I think that if the period in the Bill were increased to three or four months it should satisfy the Senator.
Amendment amended by the substitution of the word "four" for "six".
Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
I move amendment No. 18.
In page 9, Section 15, sub-section (2), lines 17 to 19, to delete the words "and in the case of a trade union registered under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935, the trade union itself".
This provision refers to two types of trade unions—the trade unions which are recorded here and the registered trade unions, which are generally accepted as Irish trade unions. Two penalties are prescribed in the case of the registered trade union—one against the trade union and one against its officials. In the case of the recorded trade union—the trade union which is registered outside the State—the penalty applies only to the officials. That does not seem to be practical patriotism. In another place, I understand the Minister was prepared to shoulder Brian Boru from his position in Irish history and to take up the attitude that he had done more for Irish unity than did Brian Boru——
I should certainly have to rack my memory to recall that.
The proposition is reasonable—that what does not apply to the English trade unions should not apply to the Irish trade unions.
This sub-section provides penalties for the making of a wilfully false statement. Presumably, the "wilfully false statement" will be made at the behest of the corporate body. It is true that a distinction is made between trade unions registered in this country and trade unions registered under the law of another country. That is a distinction we are compelled to make, because of the anomaly that very large sections of our workers are organised in corporations which are not fully under the control of our laws, and which, so far as I can see, cannot be brought fully under the control of our laws. That does not apply to trade unions which are registered in this country. As it would be the trade union which would be responsible for having made the wilfully false statement, I do not see why we should allow it to go free and punish its agents, who may have made that wilfully false statement under duress. Accordingly, it seems to me that the provision in the section penalising a registered trade union for making a wilfully false statement must stand.
Is it just or reasonable to allow a union which has its headquarters outside to go free and to penalise a union which has its headquarters here? There is a double penalty in the case of the union with its headquarters here.
If a person is outside one's jurisdiction, one has to reconcile oneself to that fact.
And if he is within your jurisdiction, you impose a double penalty.
You could enforce the law both ways, as a matter of fact.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 19 not moved.
Mr. Lynch
I move amendment No. 20:—
In page 9, Section 16, sub-section (1), line 30, after the word "whenever" to insert the following words "arising out of a conviction imposed on a trade union in respect of a contravention of this Act."
The intention of the amendment is to make the section applicable solely to offences arising under the Bill. The section would make the union liable for other matters if an order, decree or judgment for payment of money were secured in any court against the union. In other words, the union might be pursued in this way in the case of offences which constitute tort, such as libel, and offences of such a minor character. It seems to be manifestly unfair that a Bill dealing purely with trade union matters should reach out in this way to matters which have no relation to trade unionism. The Bill should confine itself in its penalties to matters arising out of or under it; it should not extend to other matters. It does not seem to be right that trade unions should be penalised in this way. This provision should be strictly confined to matters arising out of the Bill itself.
I do not know what the actual effect of this amendment would be if it were carried but I do suggest that it might possibly be this: that whereas whenever the court would make an order arising out of a conviction imposed on a trade union in respect of a contravention of this Act, it would be necessary, when the order was made for such contravention, for the person to whom the order was granted to apply again to the High Court before having recourse to the trade union's deposit to satisfy that court order. If, however, the court order or decree were granted on any other ground, then it seems to me that it would be possible for the person, to whom the decree or order was granted, to levy execution upon the deposit in the High Court without going to the High Court for the second time at all. Now, the position in which the court would find itself, if Section 16 were not in the Bill, might be this: that in granting a decree or order the court is aware of the fact that under Section 14 this deposit remains the property of the trade union and, as it was obviously the property which would be most readily assailable, a person getting a decree or order might proceed at once to attach the funds on deposit. With Section 16 in the Act, however, before he can do that he has to go to the High Court and make a summary application there to allow the order or decree to be met out of the funds on deposit, and the court, presumably, being satisfied that he has no other resort will grant his application, I take it that the line the court would take would be this: "Before we allow you to satisfy this decree out of the moneys on deposit, you must show us that you have made a reasonable attempt to get the money otherwise", and the court, I think, if not thus satisfied, would have to say: "We cannot deny you the right to take these moneys on deposit, because they are the property of the trade union against whom the decree has been issued, but since you have come to us in this way—in what we regard as a rather vexatious way—and without having tried to satisfy the judgment by levying it upon some of the other assets of the trade union, which would cause the trade union less inconvenience than will be occasioned when you levy it on the deposit, we must give against you the costs of this application and whatever further proceedings may ensue." In that way, this proviso is really a deterrent to keep people from satisfying decrees of the court out of the deposit unless they have no other resort. It is quite clear, to my mind at least, that Section 14 demonstrates that the deposit remains the property of the trade union. The first asset to which a person, who wished to act vexatiously, would turn might be that deposit, and Section 16 is put in, really, as a deterrent to prevent that being done.
If this amendment were accepted the deposit could only become attachable for anything arising out of the Act itself, and not out of other actions which may be taken by individuals from time to time against trade unions, as is very often done, as I said, for libel and other matters. If the amendment were accepted, the deposit could only be attachable for some conviction arising under the Act itself and for the purposes of the Act and in that way the Minister's point would be met about the individual not being able to proceed against the deposit in the High Court, because he would not be the person who would be damnified under the Act. I could not see the person being damnified under the Act at all, but the person may be so damnified in an action against a trade union, and afterwards bring the action to the High Court. If the Minister would accept the amendment his point is met, and the deposit only becomes attachable for something arising under the section. It seems to me to be only reasonable that the deposit should become attachable only for something arising under the Act, and not for something for which trade unions may be, and are, liable from time to time.
I am suggesting to the Senator that there is very grave danger that, if I accept this amendment, the position would only be worsened for the trade unions, because this section does offer some impediment to a person going arbitrarily to attach the deposit. If we put in this amendment I am afraid we are going to remove that protection, and the deposit is always going to be the first mark. If the Senator would study carefully the section, as he proposes to amend it, I think he will see that there is this ambiguity in his amendment, and I do not think it is worth while pressing the amendment, because of the dangers that, in my opinion, attach to it.
In dealing with this particular matter we ought to consider the purpose of the deposit. It seems to me that the purpose of the deposit is to ensure the solidity and stability of the trade union, and the liability of that deposit should not be confined to matters that have reference only to this Bill. It applies to the whole credit of the trade union, so that I think it would be rather in contradiction of the whole spirit of the Bill if the amendment were accepted.
It seems to me that the section, as it stands, rather worsens the position of a trade union as against that of any other body such as, say, an industrial insurance company or similar trading body. So long as that deposit is there it is a mark for any creditor of the union, and we do not think that is right. If the deposit were not there, the creditor would have to sue the union in the ordinary way, whereas now he has a guarantee or insurance there that he can go for that deposit which must be maintained there. In the event of anybody having a claim against the union it is the duty of the union to make that good, which they may not be able to do, and then they go out of business altogether as a trade union, not being able to make up the deposit. I think the reason for the deposit is to ensure that the trade union is solvent to the extent that the deposit is there, but the accumulation of that deposit may impose a heavy strain on the trade union. In the event of a lien being got against the deposit, the trade union may not be able to replace it. It may cease to exist as a trade union through not being able to make up the deposit.
Compare that with the position of any other person in business. A person in business who gets into trouble with creditors has the protection of the ordinary bankruptcy laws. As long as he satisfies the court that he is unable to pay more than 5/- or 2/6 in the £, he can re-open and go into business again. That is not the case with the trade union under this clause of the Bill. If a trade union gets involved with creditors, the whole deposit may be paid out of court and it may be unable to replace it. Its resources may not be sufficient to put up the amount required and it has got to go out of business altogether as a trade union. That is an aspect of this matter that is worthy of consideration. At any rate, trade unions are at a great disadvantage as compared with any ordinary trading body in the country. They have not advantage of the bankruptcy laws.
Surely, if any ordinary creditor gets a judgment order against an ordinary debtor and that debtor has visible assets, the creditor is entitled to attach these assets in order to satisfy his judgment order. Here the assets are in the shop window, so to speak. If a trade union owed £500 to a printer and at the same time had a deposit of say £10,000 with the High Court, it would be contrary to natural justice that the man to whom the £500 was properly due could not secure payment of that £500 from the body which had the £10,000 on deposit. There is a certain difficulty, one realises, in that the £10,000 deposit may be vital to the trade union, but before a person can go after the £10,000, he will have to make a second application to the court. I am sure that that second application to the court will give opportunity for a certain amount of negotiation and compromise which will, perhaps, prevent any part of the £10,000 being attached at all. I have been looking at Senator Lynch's amendment and I think, even if the purpose it seeks were desirable— which I am not conceding—the whole section would have to be recast in order to give effect to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 21:—
In page 9, Section 16, in sub-section (3), to delete in line 47 the words "fourteen days" and substitute therefor the words "three months."
This amendment is moved to meet a point which was raised by Senators Campbell and Hayes that the 14 days which we were allowing for making good any deficiencies was too short. I propose to allow three months instead.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 22 not moved.
Government amendment No. 23:—
In page 10, Section 22, in sub-section (1), to delete in lines 30 and 34 the word "authorised."
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 24:—
In page 11, Section 25, before sub-section (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(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 masters of any particular class.
This amendment was not moved on the Committee Stage because Senator O'Connell wished to have the principle disposed of on another section. The amendment is now brought in to place trade union employers on the same basis as trade union workers.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:—
In page 11, Section 26, sub-section (3), to delete all words after the word "Tribunal" in line 54, to the end of the sub-section and substitute therefor the words "shall require such trade union to satisfy the tribunal that the said trade union can if granted a determination effectively promote the welfare and protect the interests of the persons concerned in such determination and that the granting of such determination will not affect adversely the acquired rights or any claims to benefit enjoyed or acquired by the existing members of some other trade union or unions as the case may be".
I think the Minister ought to accept this amendment, the proposal being that the conditions which trade unions may enjoy should not be worsened by any merger that might be recommended by the tribunal and that steps should be taken to ensure that the merger shall operate for the general benefit of the organised workers. I think it is a safeguard that should be inserted so as not to allow the tribunal a free hand. The members of the tribunal should be satisfied that the merger would not have the effect of disimproving the conditions of the people affected by the merger. I think it obvious to anybody that the members of any organised body obliged to go into a larger association should have their rights secured. Many of these trade unions pay friendly and other benefits and these should not be jeopardised. At any rate it should not be within the power of the tribunal to worsen the conditions which organised workers might enjoy previously in their small local union.
I do not see what precisely is the difference between the intention of the amendment and the section as it stands. Paragraph 3 of Section 26 reads:—
"Before granting under this section a determination that a particular trade union shall alone have the right to organise workmen of a particular class, the tribunal may if it thinks proper"
—we may take it that as the tribunal has to take all the circumstances into account it will think proper to:—
"require such trade union to satisfy the tribunal that the grant of such determination will not affect adversely any rights or claims to benefits enjoyed for the time being by any such workmen as members of a trade union."
That is the provision in the Bill as it stands. It is proposed to substitute for that an amendment which would make it mandatory on the tribunal to require such trade union to satisfy the tribunal that—
"the said trade union can, if granted a determination, effectively promote the welfare and protect the interests of the persons concerned in such determination and that the granting of such determination will not affect adversely the acquired right or any claims to benefit enjoyed or acquired by the existing members of some other trade union or unions as the case may be."
I doubt whether the tribunal could function effectively if it were obliged to require a trade union, which was seeking a determination, not merely to protect the welfare of the persons concerned in such determination, but to satisfy the tribunal that the granting of such determination would not affect adversely—
"the acquired rights or any claims to benefit enjoyed or acquired by the existing members of some other trade union or unions"
Such an inquiry might range over the whole field of the trade union movement, and the union seeking a determination from the tribunal would, I think, be given the impossible task of satisfying the tribunal that the members of no other trade union would suffer if this determination were granted. It is conceivable that in carrying through the rationalisation of the trade union movement some individuals may suffer. I do not think you can indemnify every individual in circumstances which are not fully present to your mind, circumstances which we cannot visualise to-day. I do not think you could give such a widespread indemnity. I do not think it would be feasible and I do not think it would be reasonable to try to do so.
I think that the section as it stands does everything that can be reasonably asked. Bear in mind that it will be open to the opposing trade union, if there be an opposing trade union before the tribunal, to put the point that is covered by the amendment and to impress on the tribunal that it must take into consideration as one of the circumstances of the case the ability or otherwise of the applicants effectively to promote the welfare and protect the interests of the persons concerned in such a determination. I do not think it is necessary to write that into the Bill. We have directed the tribunal's particular attention to the fact that the workmen concerned in the trade union or unions affected may have rights and claims to benefit, and that it must be satisfied that those rights and claims to benefit will not be adversely affected by the determination. Beyond that I do not think it is necessary to go. I do not think it would be at all wise to impose upon the tribunal the very onerous duty of being satisfied that no member of any other trade union will be adversely affected by a determination which will be given.
If the word "shall" were put in instead of "may" in the section, it might meet the situation. Will the Minister consider that?
I do not mind the word "shall" being put in.
Make it obligatory on the tribunal.
If we could, by leave of the House, strike out the words "may, if it thinks proper" and substitute the word "shall," I do not mind that at all.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
An amendment made to the Bill as follows:—
Amendment 25 (a):—
In page 11, Section 26, sub-section (3). line 54, to delete the words "may, if it thinks proper" and substitute therefor the word "shall."—(Senator Foran.)
I move amendment No. 26:—
In page 12, Section 27, sub-section (1), line 22, before the word "whom" to insert the words "members of trade unions."
I take it that the object of the tribunal is to decide between the relative claims of two organisations, and in order that the tribunal may have reliable evidence upon which they can base a sound judgment and give satisfaction to all sides, I think it would be equitable that they ought to have an opportunity of having a ballot. But, if they are to take the ballot in the loose way in which this section is drafted, they will have no means of ascertaining whether they are getting the opinions of those who are concerned. Under the section it would be possible to bolster up the case of one organisation as against the other and in order to secure that that will not happen, I propose to insert the words "members of trade unions". That will give the tribunal an opportunity of seeing that they get reliable evidence and reliable information, something sound and reasonable on which they can pass a judgment so that the tribunal will be able to carry out their work properly and decide between the relative merits of the two organisations I think the amendment is a reasonable one. It is an attempt to give the tribunal an opportunity of doing the job which the Minister sets out for them. Therefore, I think the Minister ought to see the reasonableness of the amendment and accept it.
I do not think I can accept this amendment. Again, I must say I do not think it is necessary, because the tribunal will be a reasonable body of men. Two of them will probably have been trade unionists. I do not know whether the chairman will have been a trade unionist or not. They will, therefore, I presume, feel on a question of this sort that members of trade unions had perhaps superior rights to other people. Accordingly, they would attach more importance to the views of members of trade unions in a case like this, if they had to ascertain them by ballot, than they would to those who were not members of any union. But it is a far cry from attaching more importance to the views of one section of the population to denying to others the right to express any views at all. That is what might happen if this amendment were to be accepted. The non-trade-unionists in the industry would not be consulted. They possibly would not be in a position to make any representations to the tribunal. They might, in fact; in a particular industry, in an industry which has not hitherto been too well organised, be the more numerous section. Surely if the tribunal is to decide that one organisation and one organisation only is to be entitled to cater for them and to look after their needs, those unorganised workers have a right to say which organisation they would like to belong to, and that is all that would be done if they were to be permitted to participate in the ballot.
Bear in mind that the section as it stands does not compel the tribunal to take a ballot of all workers in an industry. It allows them to arrange the holding of such ballot or ballots amongst such workmen, or any class or classes of such workmen, as the tribunal consider proper. I am quite prepared to admit that it would be easier and more convenient to take a ballot of those who are members of trade unions. It may be a more difficult matter to arrange for a ballot to be taken of non-trade-unionists. It may be so difficult that it would not be practicable to do so. Accordingly, it may not be held at all. If a ballot is not taken under the section as it stands, because it is impracticable or too difficult to do so, you are not depriving these people of their rights. You are not imposing upon them absolute disability by saying: "Even if it were practicable to do so, we will not have your views expressed on this matter at all". Looking on the section and bearing in mind what the conditions are, I think in the majority of cases it will be found not to be practicable. If the tribunal decides not to take a ballot, because it is impracticable, that is a different matter to the law saying that non-trade unionists will not be consulted and have not any right to be consulted. That is what the amendment would propose, to rule out any possibility of consultation or of ascertaining views on a matter which affects vitally a certain section of the population. It has been suggested to me, and I think that there is a great deal in it, as these arguments show, that a provision which would propose to confine a ballot to members of a particular trade union only would probably be contrary to the Constitution and would not stand. I am putting that merely as a point of view which has been suggested to me, but I am basing my case against the amendment on the natural justice of the issue that if a tribunal is going to give to one organisation the sole right to cater for the needs of workers, all individuals concerned should be consulted, if it is practicable to do so.
You are going to allow these non-unionists to decide between the organised bodies.
No. The Senator must not misunderstand the position.
Another section refers to the taking of ballots.
Section 27 says:—
Before making a determination under the immediately preceding section, the tribunal may, for the purpose of obtaining the opinion in relation to such determination of the workmen who the tribunal considers are concerned therein, arrange for the holding of such ballot or ballots....
That is the point I should like to clear up. There is nothing in any of the associated sections which makes it mandatory on the tribunal to accept the result of the ballot as binding. The only thing it does is, if for the purpose of testing the opinion of the people concerned a ballot is taken, naturally the result of the ballot would be one of the circumstances, and only one of the circumstances, which the tribunal would take into consideration.
While it is not mandatory on the tribunal when a ballot is taken among non-trade-unionists, still one must realise that the mind of the tribunal has been affected by the result secured by that ballot. It seems to be going a fair way so that organised bodies would have their future determined by a ballot of a section of non-unionists. The question of the natural justice of taking a ballot amongst non-trade-unionists and of allowing them to express an opinion is one thing, but it is a very serious matter for a trade union whose future might be affected by the result of a ballot of non-trade-unionists.
I suppose it is difficult for us to visualise how the tribunal would work. Supposing we had three sections of workers in an industry, those in one trade union, those in another union and a third section in neither trade union. If ballots were taken amongst the three sections naturally the tribunal would look on the mosaic presented by the three ballots and have that in front of it as indicating what the general wish of the people in the industry would be. Probably it would not satisfy the requirements of any one of them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
I move amendment No. 28:—
In page 12, Section 28, sub-section (1), line 39, to delete the word "three" and substitute therefor the word "five".
I think there is a good argument for substituting "five" for "three". Five years seems a reasonable period.
Of course the Senator is aware of the distinction made between the two sections, where two or more unions have gone to the tribunal to secure a determination in their favour. One union will not be permitted to go to the tribunal again to secure the sole right for a period of three years. The choice between "three" and "five" is immaterial, but if the Senator thinks it would be more acceptable to the unions if five were the period, and that it would be better that the period should be longer than three years, I am quite prepared to meet him in that connection.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:—
In page 13, Section 31, before the word "Appeal" in line 26 to insert the words "majority of the"; and in line 27 to delete the word "unanimously".
It is difficult to see why the appeal board should be unanimous in its decision. Would it not be sufficient if a majority decides?
We have first to remember that the appeal board was put in in deference to arguments used in the Dáil in relation to the tribunal. We wish to give the tribunal all the prestige and all the authority possible. I do not wish, and I am sure my colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce would not wish, that appeals from the tribunal would be customary, or be taken except on very strong grounds. We are providing in the section dealing with the tribunal that it shall act by majority. But the tribunal is going to be a permanent tribunal, charged with the particular task of trying, with the help and co-operation of the trade union movement, to reorganise that movement on a rational basis. If an appeal is taken from the findings of the tribunal, I think it would be desirable, if the determination of the appeal is to be overridden—even allowing for any superior intelligence associated with the appeal board—that the determination of the permanent tribunal should only be reversed by the ad hoc tribunal, when there are at least three people on the ad hoc tribunal against two, on the permanent tribunal not forgetting that the determination granted by the permanent tribunal may have been unanimous. That permanent tribunal can act by majority vote, and it would be putting members of the tribunal in an invidious position if an unanimous opinion of theirs—they being persons who were fully versed in and intimately associated with the whole problem—were to be reversed or overridden by perhaps a majority vote of the appeal board. For that reason, in order that the determination of the tribunal should carry the authority which is essential, if the tribunal is going to do its work properly, it should not be made easy for that determination to be overthrown. Accordingly, we have ensured that in two ways. We have made it necessary that three persons should agree—
that such determination is not in the public interest, or
that, in case such determination relates to one or more trade unions of workmen, the tribunal, when making such determination, did not adequately safeguard the rights and claims to benefits enjoyed by any workmen and adversely affected by such determination or the position of officers of trade unions so adversely affected, or
that the tribunal did not make such determination in a sufficiently precise form.
and then, on those grounds, and on those grounds only—if the appeal board is unanimous—the determination may be referred back to the tribunal for reconsideration. It is essential that the findings of the tribunal should not be upset lightly, that it should be possible to upset them only if three independent minds agree that these findings are not in the public interest, or that the tribunal has failed to carry out its statutory obligations under subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a). Only then can the determination be referred back to the permanent tribunal for reconsideration.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 30 not moved.
I move amendment No. 31:—
In page 14, Section 33, at the end of the section to add the following new sub-section:—
(4) Whenever a negotiation licence to which sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of this section applies is revoked the Minister shall take such steps as he considers adequate by the publication of notices in the public press or otherwise to make known to persons likely to be affected by such revocation that the said negotiation licences have been revoked.
I will accept that amendment as reasonable.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.
I move amendment No. 34:—
In page 14, Section 35, in sub-section (1), paragraph (a), line 59, to delete the words "trade union alone" and substitute therefor the words "or more specified trade unions."
The object of this amendment can be explained best by reference to the whole section, in which certain provisions—very proper provisions, to my mind—are included to protect the individuals, whether employers or employees, in the case of only one trade union representing employers or representing employees being in the position to act for a particular trade. These provisions are confined solely to where the determination is granted to one union only. It seems to me that where there are two or more unions, but particularly where there are two, there is a similar danger. If this Bill is to work in a satisfactory manner, it is extremely important that the rights of individuals—whether individual employers or individual workers—should be safeguarded. There should be no danger whatever of one employer finding that an employers' trade union or organisation will not take him, and that the second organisation will not take him either. If privileges by way of being the only body, or the only two or three bodies, are given, there should be some safeguard that a person— except for bad character—can be a member. When I read the Bill and found that where there was a determination to only one union there was a safeguard, I thought I would suggest an amendment to say that where there were two it should apply also.
I think I see the Senator's point in this. One thing is clear: if we give to one organisation the sole right to organise any particular class of citizen, I think we are bound to ensure that all citizens will be rightfully entitled to admission to that organisation. It is comparatively easy to ensure that when you are dealing with only one body, but the moment you get two bodies catering for the same class you have the invidious task of deciding which of these organisations is to accept a person—whether an employer or an employee—to whom both bodies object. I think it would be impracticable to enforce this provision. Apart altogether from that, where you have two organisations operating in the same field, the tendency or inducement would be for one or other to take him in. They both will wish to represent the greatest possible number of persons of that particular class and the doors would not be nearly so strictly barred as they might be if one union had a sole monopoly right. I would ask the Senator not to press this amendment as, first of all, where there are two unions the likelihood or possibility that a person would be wrongfully denied admission to both of them is slight, and, secondly, I cannot see what machinery we could devise to administer a provision where more than one union is concerned. If such a provision were inserted, somebody would have to make the invidious choice, of pushing a man into an organisation which does not want him and also of allowing another organisation—which also does not want him—to remain unencumbered by him.
I take it that the attitude of mind of the Minister is that, if there is only one union and they do not want a man they will have to take him and that, if there are two unions he will not make either of them take him. This is an entirely friendly amendment, designed to make the scheme work. We have to bear in mind that it is becoming increasingly the position—and is the position with most trade unions at present—that it will be impossible for a man to get a job unless he is a member of a trade union. I am not against that, provided I am satisfied that a man can become a member of a trade union unless he does not behave as a decent citizen. He should not be excluded by any kind of quarrel which may have arisen through his being unpleasant at some meeting or other. The principle of letting him choose between two or three unions and making whichever he chooses take him in is no worse than going to one and saying that that one must take him in. On the other hand, if the present provisions are maintained, a man may find he is not able to work.
On the next amendment I will give an instance that partly has led to this amendment, though it does not apply specifically here. I have put this forward so that the Department may be aware of the position. I do not know if it would be possible to introduce anything further in the Dáil now, but at any rate I would ask the Minister to consider it. The organisations have not got to take him if he has been of bad character and if he has been breaking the rules and, naturally, he would go to the one to which he would have least objection. I am honestly afraid of an individual worker and— to be quite frank about it—equally afraid of one or two employers who, perhaps, might be cranky when they would find themselves left out. It might be disastrous to the whole scheme of the Bill.
I would say to the Senator that we should let the Bill go as it stands and experience may indicate some way of getting over the difficulty which I have mentioned.
I think I have done my duty in drawing attention to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 35:—
In page 15, Section 35, in sub-section (1), to delete all words from and including the word "if" in line 6 to and including the word "expelled" in line 7, and substitute therefor the words "if satisfied that it is undesirable to admit such person as a member of such trade union on account of his bad character or on account of his previous expulsion".
In the discussion on the Committee Stage, Senator O'Connell, I think, pointed out that this section as originally drafted would compel the trade union to refuse to accept a person who, perhaps, had had some stain on his character but who might have purged himself of that, and did not leave the union any option at all. The amendment as drafted leaves the trade union free to do what it considers desirable in accepting or rejecting the person, provided, of course, that they will have the right to reject him if he is of bad character or has been expelled for continuous breaches of the rules.
I think the amendment meets the point I raised.
If it is to be taken jointly with my amendment No. 36, I do not agree to it. If it is taken separately, I do agree.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
They are being taken separately.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:—
In page 15, Section 35, after sub-section (2), to add a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) Nothing in this section shall entitle a trade union to refuse to accept a person as a member on the grounds that such a person had previously been expelled for failure to pay dues or subscriptions if such person is willing to pay, within a reasonable time, all arrears which may have accumulated while such person was a member.
I think, perhaps, I can best explain this amendment by stating the kind of case that I have in mind. Most trade unions have a very natural provision that when a member is in arrears, after a certain time, his membership lapses. I do not think it is an expulsion. I think it is usually that the membership lapses. As a rule, the member can be reinstated by paying his arrears. That is not binding on the union, but I know of many cases where it has been accepted and no difficulty created. It has come to my knowledge quite recently that there is one trade union that has a rule to the effect that its members must not work with their fellow-members in a business or trade unless the member has been six months a member of the trade union. I am aware of a case where a member's subscription or his dues were in arrears. He received no notice of any kind from the officials of the union. He moved from one position and was appointed to another in a different firm. He was then informed by the union that they could not accept his arrears, and that the only thing they could do was to reinstate him as a new member, which cost him much less money, but he was informed that if he took up work in the position to which he had been appointed, the members of the union which was a union of which he had been a member for years, would not work with him until six months after the date when he was reinstated. I am quite certain of my facts. It is perfectly obvious that if that kind of thing can happen, this Bill could be extremely dangerous without safeguards.
The reason I put down this amendment was that if there was to be a determination in favour of only one union and if a man, either through his not being notified—which is the fault of the union—or through his being out of work and utterly unable to pay, may find himself in the position that he can only become a member again on paying his dues and that he then cannot work for six months, there would be an intolerable position. The same thing could apply to an employers' organisation, through I have never heard of it. If a monopoly is given to one or if a monopoly is given to two or three, they should not be in a position to prevent people working. My reason for putting down this amendment is that there is a very definite danger to which I thought I ought to call attention. That is really not affected by amendment No. 35, because the rest of the section remains.
I wonder if Senator Douglas is correctly informed that a man, because of lapsed membership, was allowed to rejoin but would not be allowed to work for six months?
I will give Senator Foran the exact name, case and every detail. I will stand over everything I have said.
I would be very glad, because in all my experience I have never heard of anything like that. I have certainly never heard anything like what has been suggested by Senator Douglas. I think that the amendment is reasonable, but I certainly do not agree with the case as cited. I would be very glad to know the history of this union that carries on its business in the manner indicated by him. I certainly do not believe it. I know of no similar case. There are definite rules and all registered trade unions have to register their rules and satisfy the registrar that they are a bona fide body and they have rules to carry on their unions but I do not think any union that had a rule providing for the case mentioned by Senator Douglas could register.
I did not say they had a rule. I simply stated what they are doing. I do not know anything about the rules.
If there is no rule for it, it may be another matter. It may be a section of some obscure union——
——or some body calling itself a trade union. I do not believe any established trade union could carry on such an arrangement as was mentioned by Senator Douglas.
I fail to see how this amendment of Senator Douglas would meet the case that he is making. The amendment says:
"Nothing in this section shall entitle a trade union to refuse to accept a person as a member."
I understand the union has not refused to accept him as a member. What they have refused is to allow him to work. How will this amendment get over that difficulty? There is nothing in it to say they must allow him to work. They have accepted him as a member all right.
In this particular case it would have got over the difficulty, because he would not have ceased to be a member; the arrears would have been taken. I am not going to press the amendment, but I would just like to be allowed to say that when I heard of the case I used words almost identical with those used by Senator Foran. I said, "I do not believe it." But I am prepared to take Senator Foran, to-morrow or the next day or as soon as I can arrange, to meet the person who is walking the streets waiting for the six months to elapse, and I am prepared to assure Senator Foran that I did not make a statement of this kind without knowing what I was stating. I do not for a moment say that it is the rule of the union. It is the decision of the union which is responsible for the action taken, and I personally believe that individuals should be protected against that kind of thing when this Bill becomes law, if a determination is granted. I am quite satisfied to withdraw the amendment if the Minister thinks that is best, but I do suggest to him that it may be at some point necessary—I think not imposed from above but by agreement with the trade union movement—to have some kind of minimum code of rules that would protect the individual. I make that suggestion both to the Minister and to the trade unions. I can assure them that I am not consciously anti-trade union, and never have been, but I believe some kind of minimum code to protect the individual would be their gain as well as a gain to the State. I mentioned this case, not because I want publicity for it—obviously I cannot give the names in public—but because I felt that this kind of thing might be a danger. I felt certain that if the Labour representatives here investigated this case they would use their influence to see that it would not occur again.
I must ask the Senator not to press the amendment. First of all, I do not think we could take it in the form in which it is on the amendment paper; it would have to be more precise. Apart from that, a proviso of this sort might be open to abuse. Even if the person agrees to pay, or indicates his willingness to pay within a reasonable time, how would the trade union enforce that? If he did not keep his bargain, they could expel him, but it might be used by people to play in and out, join the union, force themselves into it if they wanted something, then fall into arrears and go out again and then, by simply indicating their willingness to pay within a reasonable time claim the right— I assume the court would allow them —to go back again. Even if we were to accept the principle of the amendment, we would have to draft it differently, so that nothing would allow the trade union to keep a person out who actually tendered the amount of arrears. It would necessitate redrafting the amendment, so that at this stage of the Bill it would not be practicable to consider it.
If the Minister will convey to his successor that it is a point that requires watching, I have no desire to press it. In the particular case that I have in mind I should like to say that the amount was paid over in full and actually kept for a fortnight before it was returned to the individual.
Though it may not be cognate to the amendment, I would like to mention a complaint made to me by an employer in Galway. He said that a certain official of a trade union informed him that he could not employ anybody from a neighbouring town who was not already a member of a trade union for six months. Does this Bill remedy a case like that?
That is exactly the type of case I am referring to.
If a man is already six months a member of a trade union in another town he probably would not leave that town if the position he occupies is good enough, but new entrants are put in a very difficult position if an employer cannot take a man from a neighbouring town unless he has been a trade union member for at least six months.
This Bill deals with that point only in a very limited way. Where one trade union has the sole right to organise the workers of a particular class, in that case the worker would be covered by the provisions of the new section, but there are probably more than two trade unions organising in some of these towns and I do not think the position of the individual that the Senator mentions would be any better after the passage of the Bill than it is at the present time. These are matters that, perhaps, will have to be dealt with later. It would be much better if the trade union movement would deal with them as a domestic issue and try to find some way in which they could reduce or obviate the hardship which regulations of this sort impose on private individuals.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.
Mr. Lynch
I move amendment No. 39:—
In page 15, Section 36, to add a new paragraph as follows:—
(e) the fees payable under Section 38 of this Act.
It seems only right that the fees referred to in Section 38 should be brought under Section 36. If not, it means that the fees will not be subject to regulations to be made by the Minister. If those regulations are laid on the Tables of both Houses, they can be reviewed by the members of the Oireachtas. Only if the amendment is accepted will they be capable of being reviewed by the two Houses. I think they should be subject to the regulations which will enable members of the Dáil and Seanad to examine all the circumstances connected with the fees payable.
I am prepared to accept the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 40:—
In page 17, Section 40, sub-section (1), after the word "tribunal" in lines 5 and 6 to insert the words "and appeal boards".
I should like to know the reason for the omission of appeal boards.
I will accept amendment No. 40, and also amendment No. 41.
Amendment agreed to.
I formally move amendment No. 41:—
In page 17, Section 40, sub-section (2), after the word "tribunal" in line 8, to insert the words "and appeal boards".
Amendment agreed to.
Question:—"That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
When will the next stage be taken?
I suggest next Wednesday.
We cannot agree to put it back until next Wednesday, not that I have any sympathy for Senators so far as any work they have to do is concerned, but I do not think we would be justified in calling the House together again at the expense of something like £200 for the sake of hearing a couple of people talking. I move that the Fifth Stage be taken now.
Could we be given any argument in favour of postponing the Final Stage until next week?
We have made a number of amendments to the Bill and we might have an opportunity in the meantime of studying them and observing how they affect the general structure of the Bill.
There is no other opportunity for amendment, of course.
I quite appreciate the Senator's desire to meet next week, but, as we could not do anything to the Bill except talk about it, I do not think it would be fair to the staff here that we should come back again merely to discuss the Bill on the Final Stage. The staff are waiting to take their holidays. I live in the city and I would be quite glad to come here, but, for the reason I have given, I will ask the Senator not to press his suggestion.
In order to regularise the matter, I formally move as an amendment that we adjourn the taking of the Final Stage till next Wednesday.
My position is that I am also a resident in Dublin, and it is immaterial to me whether or not the House meets next week. But in the case of this Bill we have now reached the Fourth Stage and we have plenty of time for a discussion on the Fifth Stage. The Bill has been quite a long time before both Houses, and I think anything Senator Foran or others might have to say could be said this evening just as well as this evening week. If we have to meet again there will be considerable expense involved, and there will also be considerable inconvenience to people who, not through their own fault, and not, indeed, through our fault, but through the Government's fault, have been kept here until now.
It is the fault of the Government that these matters have been delayed so long, so that, if a division is challenged on this motion to take the Fifth Stage now, I shall vote for taking the Fifth Stage now, on the ground that it is the most expeditious and least onerous method of dealing with the business for all concerned. It is also the least expensive method, but I do not think that any member of the House is in any way hurt by being asked to make a speech on the Fifth Stage this evening rather than on this evening week.
Question—"That the Fifth Stage be taken now"—put and declared carried.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Will the Senators who desire a division please rise?
Senators Foran, E. Lynch, Hogan and Cummins rose.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
Could we have an adjournment for tea?
We can finish in an hour or so.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I sincerely hope the Bill will be as successful as the Minister expects, but, judging by the hostility which has been created to the Bill, I have great fears on that point. It is desirable that certain changes should take place in the trade union movement, but, to be successful and effective, these changes should come from within the movement. Certain efforts have been made from time to time to bring about more co-ordination or a more scientific form of trade unionism in this country. There are certain factors which have proved very definite obstacles in the way of scientific organisation, and it is to be deplored that it should fall to the lot of the Government to intervene and to bring in a measure of this kind which may or may not prove effective. Certain elements have been very active in creating hostility to the Bill. Speaking entirely for myself, I believe that, with goodwill on the part of sincere trade unions and trade unionists, the Bill will do a considerable amount of good for the working class of the country, but that all assumes goodwill and co-operation.
The measure does not go as far in certain directions as some of us would like, and, in that connection, I want to clear up what could easily be a misunderstanding which arose on the Committee Stage. It was stated by more than one Senator that at least half the organised trade unionists of this country were in foreign unions. That is, in fact, true, but to make the statement in that manner is very misleading. The fact is that more than 80 per cent. of the organised workers for whom we are legislating are in Irish unions. Of the people for whom we are legislating here, 80 per cent. are in Irish trade unions. The figures quoted here on Committee Stage represented those affiliated to the Trade Union Congress, and, for the purposes of the congress, the country is a unit. It includes the natural circle of 32 counties, and we are legislating for 26. Nearly 50 per cent. of affiliations are in the Six Counties. Hence the accurate statement that 50 per cent. of the workers of the country are in foreign unions. It would be more accurate to say that this Bill which we are now passing is going to legislate for 80 per cent. of the organised workers, and I want that to be clearly understood, as great play was made on Committee Stage with the fact that 50 per cent. of the organised workers were in English unions. They are, if you take the 32 counties. Unfortunately, we are legislating only for 26 counties, and, consequently, the figures I have quoted make a great difference.
Whether this Bill will have the effect of increasing the membership of Irish or English unions is another matter, but, as I said on Committee Stage, we are a sovereign State and the laws made in this Oireachtas apply to our people, and so long as we elect a Government to govern the country, and so long as they have the power to make laws for us, it is our duty, so far as is humanly possible, to observe these laws, so long as they are not penal and do not take away the rights of the majority of the people. This Bill may, and I hope it will, have the effect of improving the structure of the trade union movement. Everyone of us realises that there are too many unions and too few unionists. If this measure will remedy that state of affairs, it will be for the benefit of the workers and of the country in general. I sincerely hope that the expectations of the Minister in this direction will be realised. I am not optimistic about it, but I know that there are a number of unions in the country which will give their allegiance and support to the successful operation of the Bill, and help its efforts to bring about a more solid structure in the trade union movement.
I was glad to hear Senator Foran appealing to trade unionists and employers to work the Bill in a spirit of good will. I wish to join in that appeal. I think the Bill is an honest attempt on the part of the Minister to establish permanent peace between employers and workers. I believe, like Senator Foran, that it is the ardent wish and desire of the great majority of workers and employers to settle any disputes or differences which may arise between them by arbitration. It would be a good day's work if the passing of this Bill were to accomplish something on that line. We have had too many strikes and too many locks-out in this country. I have seen a number of strikes in my time—railway, shipping, builders' and farmers' strikes, and I have heard a bankers' strike threatened. The fact is that on any day of the week in Dublin you may see men and women promenading outside shops carrying placards with the words "Strike on here" inscribed on them. That is very demoralising, particularly for women. Strikes and locks-out never do a particle of good, and in nearly every case disputes could be settled by arbitration with greater advantage to the workers. If this Bill helps to bring about a situation of that kind it will be a great blessing for the country. I have a horror of strikes and locks-out and believe that lightning strikes should be made a criminal offence. The only objection I have to the Bill is that I think it is too easy. It should, I think, prescribe certain penalties for lightning strikes, which inflict terrible damage, inconvenience and harm on the general public. In the majority of cases, strikes of that description are not approved of by trade union leaders. I think this is a very opportune time for the passing of a measure of this kind. The country was never so peaceful and we were never so free from industrial troubles. The speech delivered by Senator Foran this evening augurs well, I think, for peace and prosperity between capital and labour.
I do not know that this Bill purposely deals with strikes as has been suggested by Senator Counihan. Whether, in its ultimate effects, it will reduce the number of strikes is, I think, rather problematical. After all, strikes will occur from time to time whether you have a multiplicity of trade unions or only one, because sections of that one union may go on strike. Even if we had reached the ideal position of having but one trade union organisation in the country——
Would that be an ideal state?
——whether we will reach it in our lifetime or not is another matter—I think Senator Counihan, who so warmly approves of this Bill, may make up his mind that you will still have from time to time some industrial trouble in the country in the future. The Bill itself may be considered to be unprecedented. The Minister, in the course of his remarks on the last day said, I think in reply to Senator Sir John Keane, that in no other country had legislation of this kind been attempted. I think myself that is the position. It is an unusual interference by the State in the organisation of the trade union movement. Nowhere, perhaps, outside the dictator countries, have we the State interfering with, and regulating, trade union organisations in the way and to the degree that this legislation proposes to regulate them. The effort to reduce the multiplicity of trade unions, which is the main purpose of the Bill, may succeed. The method of the deposit which has been proposed has been criticised severely in this House, and it remains to be seen whether that method will work in the satisfactory manner which the framers of the legislation hope. We would have thought, having regard to the very important interests concerned, that there would have been considerably more consultation with those interests than there was. We think that, if such consultations had taken place, the antipathy and hostility aroused by this legislation might not have taken place to the extent to which it did and might subsequently have abated. As to how the important interests and organisations concerned by this legislation will be affected by the methods outlined in this Bill must, as I have said, remain problematical for some time.
Those of us who have been intimately associated with the trade union movement over a long period of years must be presumed to know that movement intimately and domestically. We know the many peculiarities of it. We have no hesitation in saying that there are very great peculiarities and difficulties to be encountered in dealing with that movement, especially when it is proposed to transpose it in many ways. These difficulties were experienced by the Legislature of another country when it set out, over 70 years ago, to bring the trade union which was then an outlaw at common law, within the ambit of the law of that country, and to give it a legal status within it. That Legislature realised the very difficult task it had set itself. The difficulties which then manifested themselves have not disappeared in the course of time. Lawyers who have written on the trade union movement, even in modern times, have stated that there are still great legal difficulties and complexities attached to that movement.
For other reasons, apart from those legal ones, I think we may anticipate that difficulties will be experienced in the operation of this legislation. One of the main difficulties will be that of getting bodies, such as the trade unions, to associate together. As I said on the Second Stage of the Bill, there are domestic difficulties which are rather like family peculiarities. Take the case of a body that is incapable of lodging the deposit. As a result of that, it may find itself ultimately out of existence altogether, or probably in with some other body, should its members desire to continue to co-operate as a trade union, but in either event the situation will not be a happy one for it. Members of it probably will not agree to dissolve entirely because that would not be to their advantage as wage earners, and neither would it be of advantage to the State. Whether they will find themselves happily associated in the larger organisation is another matter. We have seen, in the course of the past 20 years, small organisations going of their own free will into larger organisations and, again, we have seen them come out of these larger organisations. Whether their association inside will henceforth be more happy because they are compelled to remain there by this Bill is another matter. The experience we have had in that connection over many years is due to the peculiar, individual nature of these organisations. To the extent that the Bill will bring harmony amongst trade unionists and to industry, it is welcome. I anticipate that in its first stages it will experience many difficulties. In the course of time, these difficulties may be surmounted and, if the movement is not treated harshly but is allowed time to adjust itself it probably will arrive at a happier position than has been experienced in the past.
The history of this Bill would not bespeak for it a very happy future. It had a difficult passage in another place. Although the difficulties were eased somewhat in this House, there are still obstacles confronting the measure. In the background of this Bill was the history of the trade unions. It is doubtful that that history was sufficiently taken into consideration in the construction of this measure. In fact, it is obvious that it was not given sufficient attention. Sufficient time was not taken to consider the structure of the Bill in all its ramifications. That is evidenced by the fact that we have now practically a new Bill. The measure, as originally introduced, contained about a third of the sections which it now contains. That testifies to the difficulty which any Minister would have in passing such a Bill through the Oireachtas.
Neither this House nor the other House is always the place for considering in calm mood the various provisions of so far-reaching a measure. To formulate a suitable scheme and to put it in the form of a Bill would be the work not of two or three months but of a few years, if the measure was to meet with the approval of the general mass of trade unionists. If such a measure is not of spontaneous growth, it is bound to evoke a storm of protest. The unions—affiliated and non-affiliated—have protested against provisions in this Bill and they are backed by 125,000 people who are not members of any union. I am afraid that this protest will continue to grow in intensity.
Now that this Bill is on its way to the statute book, I think the Minister would be well advised to act as he has done in the case of other contentious measures—give the unions ample time —12 months, if necessary—to consider the situation in the light of the enactment of this measure. He should give them an opportunity to evolve a suitable growth amongst themselves, keeping, perhaps, within the main provisions of the measure, but excluding the penal clauses that dot and disfigure almost every page of the Bill—a fine of £100 for this, ostracism for something else and threats of chastisement if all the provisions of the Bill are not conformed with. Certain Senators say that these penalties are not sufficiently heavy or drastic. Like the Senator who spoke in that strain, trade unionists, too, abhor strikes. The strike is a double-edged sword. It hits those who use it as well as those against whom it is used. But strikes have also their virtues, and if it were not for strikes in the past the condition of the working class to-day would not be what it is.
We must all admit the wonderful work done by trade unions in every country and, particularly, in this country. The workman has been raised from what was little better than a slave state to a position of manly independence and some measure of security. That has been done through the instrumentality of the trade unions. Now, the Government say that they will take the powers which the trade unions have been using for the past 50 years with great discretion out of their hands, because they seem no longer able to use them effectively for their own purposes or for the national welfare. I think that that is wrong. I think that they have used their powers very effectively for their own purposes and for the purpose of employment generally and they have especially used this voluntary association in unions as a weapon for national emancipation. Nobody can point a finger at the trade unions in that regard. The leaders and pioneers of the national movement sprang mainly from the ranks of trade unionism. It is rather tragic that that seems to be forgotten to-day. Nobody can say that the trade unions have so degenerated in national outlook that their fundamental rights should be put into the hands of two or three men who will, possibly, know little about trade unionism and care less about its ideals —domestic, economic and national.
This Bill will throw trade unionism into a mould to be fashioned by two or three men. One of the fundamental principles of trade unionism is the right of choice as regards the union that a person will join. That right is being taken away and we may find sections of our workers forced into unions very much against their will. They may be obliged to work under conditions abhorrent to their natures. I do not want to say anything to aggravate the position or to foment opposition that might take violent processes against this Bill, but I do say that, with the strong feeling evoked by the Bill, the Minister would be wise to do as he has done in the case of two or three other measures—postpone the implementation of the Bill, say, for 12 or 18 months until the unions will have had time to consider their position.
If a dramatist had been attending the Dáil while this Bill was going through, and if he had then attended the Seanad, he could have written quite a good play about its history. In spite of the tragic tone taken by Senator Cummins, that play would be more in the nature of a comedy than of a tragedy. The Bill caused a certain amount of excitement in the other House. Why, I do not quite know. Having come to this higher and calmer region, it got a fairly quiet passage, but its history is amusing enough. In the Dáil, everybody seemed to have lost his sense of perspective regarding it. The Labour Party in the Dáil put down quite a number of amendments for the Committee Stage. Having put them down, they did not move them, and the Minister, who had been immovable on the Second Stage, put down 35 amendments for the Report Stage which, in their volume, were bigger than the actual Bill, I gather, and passed them all. Then he came in here and was rather calm about it, and, I think, would have accepted amendments on the Committee Stage if they had been put down, but here in this House the Labour Party did not put down any amendments for the Committee Stage, but put down a number of amendments for the Report Stage.
Are we discussing, Sir, the procedure of the Labour Party in the other House and the procedure of the Labour Party in this House, or is it the Final Stage of this Bill which is under discussion?
Senator Lynch should have a sufficient sense of humour, even in regard to this Bill, to recognise that I am entitled, on the Fifth Stage of the Bill, to say what kind of support it received and what was the nature of the opposition to it. As I was saying, the Labour Party did not move their amendments on the Committee Stage of the Bill in the Dáil, and the Minister afterwards brought in many amendments. The Labour Party in this House, having fulminated mildly against the Bill in some degree—if it is possible for one to fulminate mildly against a thing—put down no amendments for the Committee Stage and then put them down for the Report Stage and, it seemed to me, they argued them rather casually. Now, on the Fifth Stage, Senator Foran has given the Bill rather a substantial benediction. So the Labour Party, with 125 organised trade unions and whatever number there is of unorganised workers, all against this Bill, must differ somewhat from Senator Foran because, unless I misunderstood him, he gave the Bill a benediction. That is why the ordinary citizen, who does not know what is in this Bill, must be in rather a quandary about the whole matter.
The fact is that the Bill is law now, or will be law in a very short time, and I join with Senators Foran, Lynch and Cummins in hoping that the very maximum of benefit that can be got from it will be got and that, being the law, it will be obeyed as the law. I think that in our circumstances anything which tends to bring the law, whether we approve of it or not, into disrepute is bad, and I think we may congratulate ourselves upon the way the Bill was treated here and upon the fact that, on the Fifth Stage, people who formerly said they were opposed to it expressed the view that it would be worked and would prove of certain benefit. There has been a good deal of opposition to the Bill and a good deal of support for it. A good deal of the opposition was uninformed, and a good deal of the support was misguided. I do not think it is right to say that the Bill removes the right to strike or that it is an attack upon the rights of trade unionists. A good deal of support for the Bill came from a very uninformed class of the community, the employers, who saw in the Bill—foolishly, I think—a move against trade unionism, and said: "This is great stuff, let us support it."
I think the Minister will agree with me that the employers who think that this Bill is a Bill to suppress trade unions, or to make them less powerful, are entirely wrong. It is no such thing. As a matter of fact, this Bill, notwithstanding what Senator Counihan said, deals in only a very small degree with trade disputes. It does not set out to curb the right to strike or the right to lock out. It does not set out to give us industrial peace, except by dealing with one of the smaller causes of industrial unrest. The object of the Bill may be to bring about peace in industry, but the only one of the causes of disputes in industry with which the Bill deals is rivalry between unions. Now, rivalry between unions, undoubtedly, has been, over a certain period, a cause of disputes, but I think it is correct to say that it is by no means the main cause of disputes. Therefore, in so far as this Bill deals only with that particular cause, it deals with a very small proportion, indeed, of the trouble.
I think it can be argued—I hope it will not prove to be the case—that not only does the Bill not accomplish anything for industrial peace, but, by forcing certain amalgamations of unions and by forcing employers into organisations and, in their case also, tending towards an amalgamation of employers' organisations, instead of making a move towards peace in industry the Bill rather marshals the forces on both sides for more bitter, more prolonged, and more deadly conflict. That is what the Bill does, and so far from weakening trade unionism, to which certain people object—I am by no means one of them, I entirely approve of trade unions and recognise the good they have done, the good that I think could not have been done by any other process, things being as they are and human nature being what it is —it will strengthen them, and those who think that it is a weapon against trade unions, in my opinion, are entirely mistaken.
The Bill, at any rate, has been very substantially amended and it contains provisions for compulsorily doing what, as has been said here over and over again from the Labour Benches, might very well have been done by the trade unions themselves and which the unions themselves may, perhaps, take steps to do for themselves. I would remind Senator Cummins, however, that we had not to wait for this Trade Union Bill, or for this Minister or any other Minister for Industry and Commerce, for examples of a big union crushing a small union. We have had plenty of examples in this city where that was done, and done very ruthlessly and relentlessly.
The Bill, with its famous 35 amendments, contains clauses in which there is a differentiation between unions which have their headquarters in the Twenty-Six Counties and those which have their headquarters outside the Twenty-Six Counties. The latter are sometimes called foreign trade unions but, as Senator Foran said to-day, some of them may be unions within the island of Ireland but not within the jurisdiction of this Oireachtas. It is true, I think, as Senator Foran said, that some of the 50 per cent. of the men affiliated to the Trade Union Congress, who are in non-Free State unions, would be in Northern Ireland, but the very fact that the Trade Union Congress has unions affiliated from all over the 32 counties shows how far from simple this problem is, and notwithstanding Senator Foran's figures—his repudiation of the 50 per cent. figure for non-Free State unions, which is the simplest term to use—I think it is true that in certain industries—for example, on the railways and in woodworking—commonly called carpenters—the vast majority of the workers are organised, and have been organised of their own volition for a long period of years, in unions which have not got their headquarters within our jurisdiction. So the problem is a grave one. However, I do not want to do any more than to say that I think the Bill is not a measure for destroying the rights of trade unions and will not, perhaps, result in industrial peace. It does strengthen the forces for conflict on both sides, and it does not take any step of any kind for establishing any form of arbitration or any more satisfactory machinery for settling labour disputes than has been in existence heretofore.
I do not want to go back on another debate, but before this particular step was taken, steps should have been taken towards compulsory investigation and a more uniform form of arbitration in respect of disputes than occurs at present. A good deal of opposition to the Bill arises from misunderstanding and a certain amount of support for the Bill comes from people who are wearied of trade disputes and want to have a whack at Labour if they can and who think there is a whack here. I think these people are very much mistaken. Now that the Bill is law, however, as a responsible citizen I feel that it is a subject for congratulation for us in this House that on the Fifth Stage we should have had the statements that we have had, that when the Bill does become law, which will be very shortly, it should be used so that the maximum benefit, whatever it may be, will come from it. For my own part, I think it does not tackle the problem in the right order or from the right angle, but whatever about that, when it does become the law I wish it luck.
I have very few words to say on this matter. I have always felt that the opposition of the Labour Party to this Bill was rather in the nature of a sham fight, and I was rather confirmed in that view by the closing speech of their leader. How ever, all I wish to say is that I do not at all share the view that this is going to create the milennium in the relations between employers and employees. I do think it is a step in the right direc tion in so far as it is going to make for discipline in the trade union movement and for an increased feeling of responsibility amongst trade union leaders. I should like, if I may, to congratulate the Government on it courage in breaking fresh ground in this very difficult problem. I would ask the Government to reject the ple made by Senator Cummins to wait apparently until the trade unions who have been inert in this matter for so many years, do something. This legislation is largely experimental and the only way to try it out is to put it into operation. I hope the Government will put the measure into force as soon as reasonably convenient.
On this Bill, the vital issues have been so distorted by the fog of words generated about it, that one is insistently reminded of an old German folk-tale called, if I remember aright, "The Spectre of the Brocken", which used to figure on the Intermediate programme when I was young. The story concerned a frightful monster which appeared from time to time on a certain mountain top and terrorised the whole countryside. At length, however, the inevitable hero arose to challenge it. The brave village youth, who climbed the mountainside to fill this rôle and attack the monster in its fastness, discovered, when the heights were reached, that nothing more formidable confronted his spear than an old horse which the mountain mists, by some optical trick characteristic of them, had magnified and distorted into a weird and monstrous apparition. Now something like this seems to have happened in connection with the Trade Union Bill, 1941. The mist of discussions generated about it has turned it into something even more terrorising than "the spectre of the Brocken". But if the paladins who attack it, come near enough to it— which many of them will not—they will discover it to be a very humdrum measure, designed for the one purpose of preventing industrial turmoil and chaos, caused by internecine strife among unions, of which this State has already had tragic experience.
That some such measure was needed, there has been general agreement, and if our people are to enjoy the industrial peace for which they long and which is so urgent at this moment— this critical epoch—the Government had no choice but to proceed with it. And there was a peremptory duty on all Parties, both in Dáil and Seanad, to help them to improve and perfect it.
A great deal has been said about "atmosphere" and I think there was an effort made in some quarters to suggest that the Bill, though innocuous in itself—some of the critics went that length—had a sinister relation to some Bill, yet unborn, designed to hamstring the trade union movement. Now it seems to me that the Bill, which has now reached its Final Stage in this House, is the greatest tribute to trade unionism conceivable. Implicit in its every section is the conviction that a strong, public-spirited and responsible trade union movement is the firmest guarantee of industrial peace our country can secure. There are many people whose great fear about the Bill is that it will make trade unions so strong that they may be tempted to abuse the strength it gives them and use it against the common weal and the public good. But the framers of the Bill have shown they had no such fear. They have endeavoured to bulwark responsible trade unionism and have given it a weapon to fight those disintegrating elements which, if left unchallenged, might bring trade unionism and the industrial progress and the development of our country, so closely bound up with it, into ruin and decay.
This Bill, then, is a notable tribute to trade unionism, and when one looks back upon the heroic part the great trade unions have played in our national fight for freedom, and recognises the high character, the splendid ability, the disinterested, loyal, national and public service of the Irish trade union leaders—especially the men we are proud to claim as colleagues in this House—the tribute will be accepted as well deserved. But this very compliment, the trust the nation reposes in the trade unions, makes it obligatory on them to do their part loyally by the Irish nation, as well as their individual members. Already the great trade unions have deserved passing well of their country by the enormous help they give the Irish language movement by their generous and untiring support of Coiste na bPáistí. That Coiste, which has done so much to make little Dublin boys and girls, the trade unionists of the future, Irish speakers and "truly Irish of the Irish", has, as its founder is never tired of reminding us, its very roots in the Irish trade union movement. We anticipate, in the new epoch which this Bill opens for trade unions, many new developments in such cultural directions. Freed from the danger of falling into ruin and disrepute through internecine strife, trade unionism in Ireland may look forward to much fruitful work for the Irish nation in new fields of activity. But for this it will—like all great movements—need the support of the women, and I think that a special effort should be made to secure it. A great deal can be done by the trade union movement for the education and the safety of women. A good strong trade union movement can render yeoman service in this respect. For all these reasons we welcome the Bill as a step in the right direction, and we wish it every success.
At this stage, it is difficult to say much upon this measure, but, candidly, I confess I am still all a-tremor in respect of the Brocken. I am still afraid that the spectre of the Brocken is not an old cow or an old horse, nor even a magnified shadow of the person who created the spectre. I should like to look at this measure from two or three angles. One is the necessity of the measure. We are told that the measure was introduced because of dislocation in industry, because of the rivalry amongst trade unions, and that, in order to bring about peace amongst these trade unions, this legislation was necessary. The Minister did not, to my mind, make any very serious case as to the dislocation caused to industry or the rivalry amongst trade unions. He did not give any very elaborate figures to show that any great dislocation was caused to industry because of trade union rivalry. He might have told us that the dislocation in industry was rather the consequence of the fact that a great many people did not seem to have any very just or equitable idea as to a proper and humane standard of living. He might have said that the dislocation, if any, caused to industry was due to the failure of the Government to include in the measures which they introduced in support of industry —and they did introduce measures in support of industry in this country— some provision by which those people who are making profits out of industries would be compelled to give an equitable standard of living to those employed in these industries. Probably that was more a cause of dislocation and disorganisation in industry than any rivalry between unions.
What is to be the effect of this legislation? One would think that before you amalgamate unions you would see to it that where people are put out of unions or it is made impossible for unions to operate, there would be means created by which they could find a place in other trade unions. Nothing of that kind is done. Some people are very much urban-minded. They can only think of Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford and some of the other large towns in reference to trade unions. But trade unions are a fact and a necessity in a great many other places. Because they operated in a fashion somewhat different from the way they operated in the large cities is no reason why they have not the right to exist and to do a good deal of work amongst the people for whom they cater.
I suggest to the Minister in all sincerity and earnestness, and without any attempt to make points against the Bill, that some attempt ought to be made to see that the utility of these unions will not be destroyed before an opportunity is given to them to find their place amongst the unions that he intends to maintain. I have pointed out to the Minister before the financial difficulties those unions will experience in finding a place in the trade unions which are to operate under the measure. I would point out to him again that those unions would not be in a position to find their place amongst those trade unions and that there is an element of coercion about this measure that is not at all liked by a great many people. If you proceed to coerce the trade unions there is no reason why you should not proceed to coerce political Parties to-morrow.
Well, that has been tried and brought about and the Senator is entitled to draw what conclusion he likes from the result. Very many people think this measure is too coercive. I do not intend to pursue that line at this stage. I put the point to the Minister that the effect it will have in large areas is to wipe out organisations which are doing very effective work without giving them an opportunity of finding their place in other organisations which are to operate.
I suggest to the Minister, without having any intention whatever to obstruct the operation of the measure, that the Bill is impracticable; that it will not work, and that he will find it impossible to operate the measure; that the measure is the most impracticable piece of legislation introduced into this Parliament since it came into existence. I suggest to him that methods will be found by which it may be avoided. I suggest to him that that is perfectly clear. I will not endeavour to point that out to him, but that opportunity is there. Under these three headings, the necessity of the Bill, the effect of the Bill, and the practicability of the Bill, I think it has failed, and notwithstanding Senator Mrs. Concannon's blessing, I think that the spectre of the Brocken still exists to frighten those people who will be affected by the provisions of the measure.
So much has been said in regard to this Bill that I think there is very little further that I can say on it, except that on the Second Reading Senator Foran moved and I seconded an amendment asking the House not to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
"pending consultations between the Government and the trade unions with a view to the enactment of agreed proposals for the purpose of improving the structure and increasing the effectiveness of the trade union organisation."
I want again to appeal to the Minister before he puts this Bill into operation to give serious consideration to the suggestions made in that amendment. Like other Senators, I hope that this Bill will do all the things that it sets out to do. Speaking with a full sense of responsibility, and I hope I am a serious and responsible person, I do fear that, notwithstanding the opposition we have had to this Bill up to the present, the opposition in the near future is likely to take a more serious turn. I am stating that now, as I said, with a full sense of my responsibility, and what Senator Hogan has said may ultimately prove to be true—that the trade union movement in this country may take steps to render the whole working of the Bill impossible. It is for that reason that I urgently appeal to the Minister to give serious consideration to the question of delaying putting the Bill into operation until some method may be devised to try to get those unions to settle their own affairs amongst themselves, so that small unions may merge in a free and voluntary manner with other unions.
Much stress has been laid here on the fact that small unions are the cause of the trouble. I am not referring to the Minister now at all, but there seems to be a feeling of smug self-satisfaction among certain Senators that once the small unions are liquidated everything will be easy and we will be without any further trouble. I do not think that is at all likely. I think you are more likely to have wider and more complicated trouble when the number of unions is reduced. The small union as a rule thinks very seriously before it rushes into a dispute of any kind, for the reason that its funds or its powers are not as great as those of the bigger unions. Therefore, there will be more likelihood of unions embarking on a dispute, whether by way of strike or in some other way.
I think the picture as to the number of disputes and the number of strikes and lock-outs we have had has been overdrawn. Many unions in this country have not had an industrial dispute of any kind for the past 25 years. My union is one of them. We had only one dispute, and that was the newspaper strike of seven years ago. That strike would not have lasted one week were it not for the attitude of a high official in the Minister's Department who insisted that I should apologise to a certain newspaper magnate before any negotiations were embarked upon. I think that was a colossal mistake. The result of that attitude of his was that the strike went on for 13 weeks. I do not want to make any point about that, but that strike would not have lasted a week were it not for the attitude adopted by a member of the Minister's staff. I am not making any charge against the Minister's Department as such. Our relations with the Department of Industry and Commerce in connection with trade disputes of all kinds have been of the most friendly and helpful kind. We have had a conciliation board set up, and there has been no trouble since then.
Some people, like Senator Counihan, think that this Bill is going to settle all disputes in future. Many Senators do not believe it is going to do anything of the kind. In some respects I think the Bill is going to engender more strikes inside the trade union movement. I am hopeful that the Bill will do all that the Minister expects it to do. But I urge that there is a likelihood of a serious attempt being made to render this Bill inoperative. There is no doubt about that. Once again, in the most friendly spirit, I wish to say that I desire the Bill to do all that is intended by the Minister, but I urge him not to be too hasty about putting it into force. Senator Counihan said that this was the right time to enforce the Bill, inasmuch as there was no industrial strife.
The argument should be the other way that this is the wrong time to put it into force in view of the fact that there is an Emergency Powers Order in operation which prevents trade unions doing what they should be doing. As there is no possibility of a dispute with regard to wages at present, this would be the correct time for the trade unions to try to put their house in order. The attitude of some people in regard to the Bill seemed to be that trade union officials were a pack of outlaws or rapparees who should be rounded up and put into compounds, and that then there would be no disputes. That opinion is very unfounded. I do not think the Bill will do what the Minister hopes it will do to remedy defects that exist in the trade union movement. Nobody wants to stand over abuses of any kind. We all want to see a well-organised and a fairly well conducted trade union movement, but I do not think this Bill will do what the Minister expects.
Personally I am glad that the Minister has made the amendments suggested. He has been fair enough in that respect. I should like to pay tribute to him, as he did put amendments into the Bill that were suggested on the Committee Stage as well as amendments that were accepted by him. Some Senators said that the opposition to the Bill was misdirected and ill-informed. Senator Sir John Keane said that the attitude of the Labour Party resembled a sham fight. The Senator may have that view regarding the attitude of the Labour Party. I say again that not only is this Bill likely to create very serious trouble, but with a full sense of responsibility, not alone towards the trade union movement but to the country as a whole, I urge the Minister not to be too quick in putting it into operation when it becomes law, but to see that time is given to impress on unions the desirability of putting their house in order. If time is given the limit is in his own hands. With all the fervour I can command I appeal to the Minister to do what I suggest. I do not know if he is anxious to do it. I am sure he is serious in desiring to remedy whatever defects there are in the movement. Some people seem to think that the trade unions have been guilty of a crime, but I ask them to remember that trade unions are now deprived by Emergency Powers Order No. 83 of rights that they had prior to its introduction. I urge the Minister to give consideration to these points.
There is not much that I have to say about this Bill now, except personally to express my appreciation of the manner in which it has been discussed in this House. I will not conceal that its reception elsewhere was a surprise to me, because this Bill, as has been said, does not interfere with the fundamental rights of Irish workers. It does not interfere with the fundamental right to organise themselves for the advancement of their own interests. It does not in any significant way limit or curb their right to withdraw their labour if they feel so minded. It is a Bill that breaks new ground, not because it requires trade unions to fulfil certain conditions; it is breaking new ground in setting up inside the trade union movement by law a tribunal which, if it will not settle inter-union disputes will, at any rate, remove what has been a great cause of them; a tribunal which will assist the trade union movement to organise itself upon reasonable grounds, by allocating to each of its component organisations a reasonable sphere of activity. It is only in that regard the Bill is breaking new ground. The fact that it is to that extent a pioneer measure made it, in my humble opinion, a measure which should have been reasonably and calmly considered. I am sure experience will show that there are defects in the measure which would not have been permitted to remain if we had elsewhere the same deliberative discussion that we have had here. I regret that this should be the case, but I feel, that the defects in the measure, or the responsibility should be put on the proper shoulders, and those shoulders are not the shoulders of the Government.
A great deal has been said during the discussion to-day as to whether this Bill is going to be effective or not. I think I should state the theory upon which it has been based. I do not merely feel, but it is a considered judgment on my part, that many of our industrial disputes would have been avoided if it had been within the power of the trade union movement to enforce discipline upon some of the more unruly members of the organisation. It is not possible for the trade union movement to discipline itself as long as it remains open to any person to disregard the rulings of the congress and to disregard the counsels of the wiser members of the congress and go out and pursue an entirely independent policy. I did feel also that many of our disputes were unduly prolonged, because there was a question of trade union prestige, as between one union and another, mixed up with the economic issues involved. Very often a strike has been continued merely to pamper the vanity of one man, who has pretended to maintain an iron front, when other more responsible officials felt that in the interests of the members of the union and of the workers of the country generally, some reasonable approach to a compromise ought to be made. I wish to see a strong trade union movement in this country. I wish to see our workers and our employers well organised, because I feel if we have these powerful organisations on each side, that with power will come responsibility, and with responsibility will come a spirit of compromise, a spirit of give-and-take, which is the only way in which you are going to avoid trouble in industry.
We have heard to-day—from Senator Hayes, I think—that the trouble about this Bill was that it began from the wrong end. I think on the contrary, that it began from the right end. If we are to build anything in the nature of arbitration or conciliation machinery in this country, we can build it only on a solid foundation—on the foundation which this Bill will lay. Something has been said about other measures which have been in mind or are envisaged. This Bill stands on its own. It gives to the responsible elements in the workers' trade union movement an opportunity for equal consultation with responsible elements on the other side of industry. When they have put their houses in order, they can meet and sit down around the council table with that sense of responsibility and power to which I have referred. It gives them the opportunity to devise machinery such as have been devised in Sweden, where the two elements in industry can settle their differences and make reasonable compromises without having a dislocation of production and that widespread suffering which is brought about sometimes by the present method of settling disputes.
In the course of the debates here and in the course of the agitation which has been conducted against this Bill outside the Oireachtas, suggestions have been made that, if it goes through, one or two things may happen—first, there may be an organised movement on the part of the trade unionists to resist the law, and secondly, members of the trade union organisations may be so forgetful of their duty to their fellowman and to their country as to refuse to co-operate with other Irishmen in trying to secure the safety of us all. I am perfectly satisfied that, now that the Bill is becoming law, wiser counsels will prevail and that these people who have been using this Bill, not to advance the interests of the working class as a whole but to advance their own sectional and personal interests inside this movement, will now have to take their proper place and that the members of the Irish working class and their sons and daughters, who have been the backbone of Irish nationality and the foundation of this State, and who helped us to bring it into being, will, of their own volition, see that their unions obey the laws of the State. They will see that there is nothing in this Bill which is inimical to them or to their organisations. They will realise that those who would urge, at this particular time in the history of Europe, that Irishmen should refuse to accept the obligations of Irish citizens, are not the friends of the Irish worker or the friends of Ireland.
I do not wish to say anything which might prolong the sort of campaign which has been conducted against the Bill. The Government have introduced it, not with the desire to weaken the Irish trade union movement but, as I have said, to strengthen that movement and to give it an opportunity to re-organise itself. The means which we have adopted can be questioned, but the sincerity and the good intention must be accepted. It has been said that there is an element of coercion in the Bill, but if abuses are to be cured some element of coercion must be introduced, in order to ensure that those who are responsible for the evils will endeavour to redress them. We have given the Irish trade union movement an opportunity to re-organise itself. In this Bill governmental interference with trade unions has been reduced to a minimum. We lay down one broad condition and, when that condition has been fulfilled, the shape, the form and the scope of the re-organisation are matters for the Irish trade unionists.
I am satisfied that the deposit which is asked is not one which will place in jeopardy any trade union which is fit to exist. I am perfectly certain that, in so far as these smaller organisations which have been referred to here are concerned, to the extent to which they are capable of rendering real service to the Irish working classes, the more substantial trade unions will not allow them to disappear if there is good reason for their maintaining an independent existence. I am perfectly certain that the men who have built up the strong and disciplined elements of the Irish trade union movement will not allow any section of Irish workers to be disorganised simply because it requires a deposit of a few hundreds or a few thousands of pounds. I am certain that inside the movement there is the power to comply with the conditions of this Bill and carry through the re-organisation which will be not merely for the good of the Irish worker but for the good of Ireland.
Question put.
Will the Senators challenging a division please rise?
Senators Campbell, Cummins, Foran, Hogan, E. Lynch, O'Connell and Tunney, rose.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Blaney, Neal.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Colbert, Michael.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Counihan, John J.
- Goulding, Seán.
- Hawkins, Frederick.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Healy, Denis D.
- Honan, Thomas V.
- Johnston, James.
- Kennedy, Margaret L.
- Lynch, Peter T.
- Mac Fhionnlaoich, Peadar.
- (Cú Uladh).
- Madden, David J.
- O Buachalla, Liam.
- O'Callaghan, William.
- O'Donovan, Seán.
- O'Dwyer, Martin.
- O'Neill, Laurence.
- Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
- Quirke, William.
- Stafford, Matthew.
Níl
- Campbell, Seán P.
- Cummins, William.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick.
- Lynch, Eamonn.
- O'Connell, Thomas J.
- Tunney, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Goulding and Hawkins; Níl: Senators Campbell and Cummins.
Question declared carried.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.45 p.m.sine die.
