Vol. 26 No. 7
I move amendment No. 1:—
In paragraph (b), page 2, line 39, to delete the words "or wholly or mainly clerical work."
This is an effort to bring clerical workers within the scope of the Bill. I do not know if there is any real justification for not doing so, but I should like to hear the Minister on it.
The effect of the amendment would be to include clerical workers in the scope of the Bill. When the original Act was framed, it was decided that clerical workers should not be subjected to the same regulations concerning hours of work and other conditions of employment as shop assistants in the ordinary sense. Similarly, when the Conditions of Employment Act, relating to industry, was framed, clerical workers employed in connection with industries were not included within the scope of the Act. It was contemplated at the time that the conditions of employment of clerical workers would be considered separately, and, if it appeared that legislation in relation to them was required, that a separate Act should be passed in order to give them whatever protection was necessary.
I could not agree to accept the amendment. I do not say that there is not a case for consideration in connection with clerical workers, whether employed in shops or industry, but I cannot accept the amendment, because I have not examined whether the circumstances are such that clerical workers employed in shops should be subjected to the same conditions as other shop workers. It may be that the conditions of employment, in the case of many classes of them, at any rate, are such that they could not fairly be subjected to the same conditions as shop assistants, and I think we should maintain the original intention of confining the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act to shop workers proper, leaving the question of the regulation of hours of work and conditions of employment of clerical workers to be considered separately.
I do not intend to press the amendment, but I take it that the Bill lays down the conditions under which workers may be employed, and the inclusion of clerical workers would in no way worsen those conditions. There are a number of clerical workers who are partly shop assistants, and it is in order to ensure that these people will get the benefit of the Bill that the amendment is put forward.
I want to make it clear that there is no worsening of the conditions of employment of these workers. They were not covered by the original Act, nor will they be covered by this amending Bill. In any case the Senator's amendment would, if passed, merely affect one class of clerical workers—those employed in connection with restaurants—and not clerical workers generally. If there is a case for legislation of this kind in regard to clerical workers, it should, I think, apply to them generally, and not merely to one section.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In sub-section (2), paragraph (c), page 3, line 14, to delete the words "bread, flour confectionery".
What I said on the other amendment applies also to this one. This represents an effort to secure reasonable hours for breadvan drivers. They are not similar to any other class of van-drivers in the State. They are very closely associated with shop-work. We are all aware that a case relating to their conditions of employment was before the courts recently. The associations catering for them went to very considerable expense to try to establish their rights under the original Act. Now, that that Act is being amended by this Bill, there is a case for bringing these breadvan drivers in under it. I do not think there is any real argument for excluding them.
The main purpose of the Bill is to put them out. This Bill was originally introduced when a decision of the Circuit Court appeared to imply that breadvan drivers were, in fact, covered by the original Act. The situation which arose then, in relation to that particular trade, was such that it was decided forthwith to introduce amending legislation to make clear the intention of the original Act, which was to exclude breadvan drivers from its scope. Subsequently, there was a decision, on appeal, by the Supreme Court which altered the circumstances somewhat in so far as it made it clear that breadvan drivers, in ordinary circumstances, would not be covered by the terms of the original Act, but might be covered in certain circumstances. The purpose of the amending Bill is to make it clear that breadvan drivers will not be covered, because I think it is evident that you cannot regulate the hours of work of breadvan drivers in the same way that you can regulate the hours of work of shop assistants employed in an ordinary shop. The circumstances that had arisen, following the decision of the Circuit Court, were such that not merely would all the breadvan drivers in the country be entitled to recover very substantial sums in the way of overtime payments, sums amounting to well over £30,000, if the terms of the original Act were rigidly applied, but it seemed likely that breadvan drivers would not, in fact, be employed at all. I doubt very much if it is in the interests of breadvan drivers that this measure should apply to them. Because of the nature of their business it is, I think, true to say that it would be impossible to organise it on the basis of an 8-hour day or a 48-hour week, and if any attempt were made to organise it on that basis then, I think, the practice of selling bread from vans by breadvan drivers would disappear throughout a very large part of the country because of the increased cost. If the cost of bread deliveries were to be substantially increased, the effect would be bad both for the bakery trade generally and for the public.
So far as breadvan drivers are concerned, they are in much the same position as other transport workers. They are away from their base with vehicles and have to bring their vehicles back to their base whether limited to the 8-hour day or the 48 hours a week in the original Act or not. Consequently, whatever arrangements may subsequently have to be considered to regulate the conditions of employment and the hours of work of persons engaged in connection with vehicles and transport operations, you clearly cannot apply the same rigid principles in their case as are possible in the case of persons employed in factories or shops. I could not agree to accept the amendment, nor do I think it is in the interests of breadvan drivers themselves that the amendment should be accepted.
I think it would, but the Minister thinks otherwise. Breadvan drivers are very anxious that their conditions of employment should be brought into conformity with the ordinary run of things. I would like to know from the Minister if all travelling shops are excluded from the Bill?
No. The difficulty that arose was due to the fact that, in order to make it clear that the original Act applied to travelling shops, an amendment was inserted during the progress of the Bill through the Oireachtas. That amendment was intended to ensure that travelling shops would be covered, but not breadvan drivers. It was that particular section of the Act which was subsequently interpreted by the court to mean that breadvan drivers were covered. The drafting difficulty that arose in connection with the Bill arose out of the fact that it was intended to catch the travelling shops while excluding certain types of vehicles used in connection with trade, such as breadvans, ice-cream vans and the like.
In view of the Minister's statement, I am of the opinion that breadvan drivers are being very harshly treated under the Bill since we are now told that travelling shops generally come within its terms. Because of the nature of his business, I would think that a breadvan driver, going through the country with his van, is undoubtedly a travelling shop. Yet the breadvan driver is excluded from the terms of the Bill. Surely there is very little difference between the travelling shop and the ordinary breadvan from which bread is sold from door to door.
I think the Senator misunderstands the position. The reason why it was decided to apply the Act to travelling shops was to ensure that the conditions of employment of persons engaged in connection with these travelling shops would be the same as for shop assistants, and thus prevent unfair competition on the part of the travelling shops against the normal type of shopkeeper. In the case of breadvan drivers the circumstances are different. The breadvan, as a rule, operates from a shop, partly on a cash on delivery basis. Quite clearly, if we were to apply the same principles to persons employed in connection with breadvans as are applied in the case of persons employed in shops, then the work of the distribution of bread by means of vans must be organised upon the basis of a 48-hour week or an 8-hour day. If the van is not back in the stables before the expiration of the 8-hour day what happens? Is the breadvan driver to leave it on the side of the road and go home, or is he to do what, in fact, was done, to carry on on the same basis as previously, and then claim overtime for the excess hours worked? That would increase the cost of delivering bread by breadvans. The claim which the breadvan drivers could have made against the bakers of this country, if the original decision of the courts had been upheld, would have amounted to well over £30,000 in respect of overtime payments.
It seems to me obvious that if the cost of selling bread by means of breadvans is going to be increased by that amount, then either the process itself will have to be reorganised or stopped, or else the cost of delivering bread by breadvans will have so increased that people will not avail of the service. It seems to me that we must deal with breadvan drivers, if we are to deal with them at all, under some principles that subsequently may be considered practicable to apply to other persons employed in transport work—delivery vans engaged in connection with shops, transport workers in connection with factories or transport workers generally. While it may be possible to devise rules which will regulate their hours and conditions of employment, they obviously cannot be as rigid as those which are practicable in the case of shops or factories.
I still think there is a definite discrimination here against the breadvan drivers. Other travelling shops come within the terms of the Bill.
The inclusion of other travelling shops was intended not to be an advantage to them but to impose restrictions on them.
These breadvan drivers have to work abnormal hours. They are out late at night. Would the Minister say if there is any hope that, under this or some other Bill, it is intended to give them some relief? At present they appear to be nobody's child.
I stated at the time that it was intended that this series of legislation would be continued to cover transport workers, although I saw a difficulty in devising the principles in relation to which legislation applying to transport workers would be framed. If it is found possible to extend this type of legislation to cover persons engaged on transport operations, whether transport for hire or of the ordinary kind or concerned with the delivery of goods from shops, then clearly the position of breadvan drivers could be reconsidered.
I move amendment No. 3:—
At the end of the section to insert the following new sub-section:—
(3) The provisions of the Principal Act shall be deemed never to have extended to any vehicle from which there was carried on the retail trade of selling ice-cream, if and so long as the retail trade of selling ice-cream was the only or main trade carried on from such vehicle, and Section 3 of the Principal Act shall be deemed always to have had effect accordingly.
This amendment deals with the position of ice-cream vendors. The judgment of the Supreme Court, to which I have referred, held that if a retail trade is carried from a vehicle or from the immediate vicinity of a vehicle, the employee must be deemed to be a member of the staff of the vehicle, which itself is deemed to be a shop. He must, accordingly, be regarded as coming within the scope of the Act. Ice-cream vendors carry on their trade from the vehicle or its vicinity and they are, therefore, brought within the scope of the Act.
Section 3 of this Bill excludes ice-cream vendors as from the date upon which it becomes law. The amendment will exclude them retrospectively from the provisions of the Principal Act, which was passed in May, 1938. It was not intended that ice-cream vendors should come within the scope of the Principal Act, but the judgment of the Supreme Court seems to suggest that, unless we adopt this provision, most ice-cream vendors, if not all, will have to be held as being within the scope of the Act.
Breadvan drivers get a commission on all the loaves they sell. Do ice-cream vendors get any commission from, let us say, a certain proportion of ice-cream?
I could not say. The point was whether a person employed in connection with a travelling shop of that kind came within the scope of the Act and, as between an ice-cream van and a breadvan, the difference is that the ice-cream vendor sells the ice-cream at, or in the vicinity of, the van whereas the breadvan driver knocks at the doors of the houses. The judgment of the court was that, because the breadvan driver went to the door, he was not selling bread in the vicinity of the van, whereas the ice-cream vendor was. It was not a clear judgment that these people were within or without the scope of the Act; the judgment was that, if the sale was in the van or in the vicinity of the van, then the person came within the scope of the Act. If the sale took place some distance away, then the person was outside the scope of the Act. We have excluded ice-cream vendors from the scope of the Bill and the purpose of the amendment is to exclude them retrospectively from the date of the Principal Act.
I do not see how you can call a breadvan a travelling shop except by reason of the fact that the driver would be getting a commission on everything he sold. I remember some years ago, when your Department was arranging the price of bread, there was a definite price for sale over the counter and a definite price for bread delivered. Was it a halfpenny or a farthing?
A farthing per loaf.
That would mean that many poor people taking, let us say, half a dozen loaves at the door would pay 1½d. for delivery?
No. There were three prices, one for sale at the bakers, one for the retail shop, and one for bread delivered, which represented an increase of a halfpenny on the 4lb. loaf. It is not true that the breadvan driver gets 1½d. for delivering six loaves.
I should like to know what he does get. The main point is that the poor should get bread at a reasonable price.
That raises a different issue.
What precisely is the necessity for the retrospective nature of the amendment?
We never intended that the Principal Act should apply to this class of workers. It was really impracticable to apply it. It now appears from the judgment of the court that the Principal Act should be held to apply and, consequently, every worker on a van might have a claim in respect of overtime for hours in excess of 48 in the week. As it was never intended that the Act should apply to them, we think it desirable to amend it in that respect and to make clear that that type of claim should not arise.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 3, line 25, to delete the words "Borough of Dublin" and insert instead thereof the words "Boroughs of Dublin, Cork, Waterford and Limerick".
We think that the areas covered in the amendment should come within the terms of the Bill. We see no reason why the amendment should exclude the workers in those areas. We should like to hear the Minister's view on this matter.
When I was introducing this Bill on Second Reading in the Dáil and the Seanad, I expressed the opinion that it was a mistake ever to have attempted to deal with the conditions of employment of hotel workers in a Shops Act. I came to that conclusion before the original Shops Act had passed through the Oireachtas. In the course of the discussions, on the Committee Stage in the Dáil and here, it became obvious that so many difficulties were going to arise out of an attempt to apply the same conditions of employment to hotel workers as were proposed to be applied to shop workers, that we should never have begun the process. I intended, when introducing this Bill, to repair that mistake by taking hotel workers altogether out of the Act.
The experience of the years during which the Act has been in operation has shown that the great majority of hotel employers could not obey the Act, that it was literally impossible for them to do so, and inspectors of the Department reported frequently that the Act could not be enforced because the circumstances of employment in many classes of hotels were such that the conditions required by the Act could not be met by hotel proprietors. That general argument is still true, but it was pointed out to me by representatives of workers and in the Dáil that the general argument did not apply with all its force in the City of Dublin and, on that account, I agreed to amend the legislation in the Dáil by retaining the hotel workers in the City of Dublin within the scope of the Principal Act, but only the hotel workers in the City of Dublin.
In Dublin City there are special circumstances. Most of the trade done by hotels in the city is steady, all the year round trade. The conditions of employment in Dublin City have been arranged by agreement with the unions catering for the hotel workers on much the same lines as were contemplated in the original Act. The difficulty that has arisen in most parts of the country arose mainly out of the fact that there was not available a pool of workers on which hotel proprietors could draw when they required additional staffs in order to conform to the terms of the Act, giving the hours of work and the periods of rest which the original Act contemplated. These conditions do exist in the City of Dublin. It is possible in Dublin for the employers to conform to the Act.
The same conditions that apply in Dublin do not apply elsewhere and, while I would have preferred that we would have tackled this problem of hotels—and I agree that there is need to tackle it—in a separate measure, I was willing to accept a proposal that, for the time being, at any rate, the position in respect to Dublin should be left unchanged.
I do not think, however, it can be argued that the conditions that exist in Dublin are reproduced in Cork, Limerick or Waterford. The mere fact that these are county boroughs does not mean that the conditions are the same as in Dublin, and, in fact, in these centres not merely have difficulties been experienced in enforcing the Act, but I think the trade union organisers, who had secured similar conditions to those contemplated by the Act for Dublin, had failed entirely to get them observed in these centres, because of the comparative scarcity of trained hotel workers and other difficulties. In Dublin, as everybody knows, there is a sort of floating staff of trained waiters and other hotel workers who are more or less in constant employment in connection with public dinners and social functions of one kind or another, who are given employment in hotels as required, particularly because the provisions of the Act require the enforcement of terms of leave for their employees and so on, and because of the existence of that pool of skilled workers, on which the proprietors can draw, it has been possible for them to conform to the Act in Dublin.
Similar circumstances do not exist in other centres and, consequently, the difficulties in enforcing the Act there were considerable. I would ask the Senator not to press this amendment because I think it would be impossible to apply the principles of the original Act in these other centres. I do not think they have been applied and, in fact, I think there has been evasion of the terms of the Act in these other centres. In my opinion, it is altogether undesirable that we should have a situation of having an Act upon the Statute Book requiring certain conditions of employment and hours of work which everybody knows cannot be obeyed and which, in fact, are not obeyed. Everybody will agree that there are circumstances associated with hotel employment in this country which require to be rectified by legislation, and I think that at some stage we should tackle the job of trying to devise legislation which will fit the varying conditions of hotels catering for different types of clients and in different parts of the country. I think that we could do it and that we should do it, although it will have to be an Act to provide for all the various types of hotels that exist, such as the city hotel which caters for clients all the year around, the hotel in the smaller urban centres whose main business is associated with commercial travellers and such people, and the hotel in the rural districts whose trade is only seasonal and carried on during the summer months. The conditions which must apply to these hotels, obviously, will vary according to the nature of the trade done, and I think we can consider that separately in a separate Act relating to hotel employees, as I think we should have done in the very beginning. The initial mistake was to attempt to deal with hotel workers in a Shops Bill. That has been rectified, but I agreed to leave Dublin unchanged until we got special legislation.
The Minister has admitted candidly that because hotel staffs in Dublin are organised and have arranged their working conditions he could not see his way to alter them. I want to tell the Minister and the House generally that prior to the organising of the hotel workers their conditions were appalling and their hours were unlimited. That is the position that you are allowing to continue in Cork, Limerick and Waterford by your action in this Bill. You bring no relief whatever to the Dublin hotel workers. Now, as the Minister says, Dublin is the centre from which most hotel staffs are organised. These men are accustomed to having certain settled conditions in Dublin, and they may go down to Cork and have to endure unlimited hours and appalling conditions, and yet there is no relief for them under this Bill.
The Minister said that at some stage an effort will be made to standardise the conditions of hotel workers. Will he be more specific on that, and say when it is his intention to introduce legislation giving relief to hotel staffs? He is very simple if he believes in his own argument that because of the difficulty of carrying on the trade the hours cannot be reduced. Now, I am a long time trying to bring about an amelioration in working conditions, and I never met any set of employers who did not put up that argument: that trade would not permit it, that it would be impossible to make these adjustments, and so on, but when pressure was brought on them they found a way to do it. If the Minister would take a bold step he certainly would bring the people owning those hotels to realise that their employees ought to have reasonable working hours the same as any other workers in the country.
I think the Minister should seriously consider bringing in legislation to give relief to people engaged in hotels. The leaving out of Cork, Limerick and Waterford is a very serious blot on the Bill because these people have to endure almost impossible working conditions, and if the matter is left to the employers it will never be improved. The only hope of improvement is to have it done by legislation, and I certainly would urge the Minister to set about the matter at the very earliest opportunity. It is not my intention to press the amendment, but having brought the matter to the notice of the Minister I sincerely hope he will give it the attention it requires because the conditions are very bad. These people, as I say, are unorganised and entirely at the mercy of the employers who will not bother their heads to alter the conditions of employment.
I move amendment No. 5:—
Before Section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—
Section 23 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the addition of a new sub-section as follows:—
(5) The Minister may, whenever and so often as he thinks fit, by order under this sub-section amend in respect of hotels the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of this section.
This is a matter which I mentioned on the Second Stage, and I do not know if the Minister has changed his view on it yet. The argument for this amendment might furnish an argument against the last amendment because it is alleged that even in Dublin it is difficult for the proprietors of hotels to carry out a particular section, Section 23 of the Principal Act, which provides that the proprietor of every establishment shall specify in a notice, which shall be in the prescribed form, the daily hours to be worked by each member of the staff and the intervals for rest and meals to be allowed to each member of the staff. I am told that this is a provision which is very difficult to carry out—that is, the actual putting up of the notice—that in fact, as between the trade unions and the employers the thing works itself out, but the difficulty is found in actually providing a schedule to meet the requirements of the Principal Act. It is suggested, therefore, that the Minister should take power, after he has had more experience of how the Act works in Dublin, to amend, by Order under this sub-section, in respect of hotels, the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 23 of the Principal Act. It is not a matter of change of conditions of employment so much as a matter of more elasticity with regard to the publication of how things are going to go. It is suggested that when the Minister had experience he might easily find a better scheme which would be agreed to by the hotel proprietors and by the trade unions and which would be an improvement on the present one. This kind of amendment that I am proposing is, of course, common form. There are a great many such sections giving the Minister power to make regulations, and I am merely putting it to the Minister that it is a difficult thing which might be overcome in this way better than any other.
I have no objection to the amendment. In fact I will go so far as to say that it is probably better that the amendment should be adopted. The original suggestion of the proprietors was that they should be exempted altogether from this obligation to display an hours of work notice. I could not agree to that because, clearly, the enforcement of the Act by the Department's inspectors involves some arrangement under which the inspector could find out what hours the various members of the staff should be at work, and clearly the members of the staff themselves were entitled to know when they were required on their employer's business. But it may be that the existing section of the Principal Act is somewhat rigid. In any event, I see no harm in having the power to modify it if a good case for modification can be made and, therefore, I have no objection whatever to the amendment.
I am glad the Minister takes that view. Might I say that I agree with him entirely that there must be a scheme for seeing that the provisions of the Act, whatever they may be, are carried out? The amendment is not proposed with a view to worsening the conditions prescribed by the Principal Act and continued by this particular Bill when it becomes an Act.
I move amendment No. 6:—
Before Section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—
Section 29 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion in sub-section (3) of the following paragraph in lieu of paragraph (a), that is to say—
(a) in relation to a member of the staff of a shop which is a refreshment house, the hour of 3 p.m. or the time at which such member has completed five hours' shop work on the relevant day in such shop, whichever is the earlier, and.
There were a number of amendments moved in the Dáil relating to the conditions of employment in restaurants. The amendments were, I think, sponsored by the Restaurant Proprietors' Association and had previously been discussed between officers of my Department, representatives of the association, and representatives of the union and I found that there was not any very great objection to their adoption. In order, however, to secure an expeditious passage of the Bill through the Dáil I agreed to introduce amendments in the Seanad to achieve the same results but prepared by the Parliamentary draftsman, because the amendments which were moved in the Dáil were not properly framed. This is one of those amendments. The purpose of them is as follows: The Principal Act, in so far as the staffs of refreshment houses are concerned, requires that they should be released for their weekly half-holiday at 3 p.m. or at the expiration of the fifth hour after the time of commencing work, whichever is the earlier. It has been contended that when the luncheon interval for the staffs is taken out of the five hours of employment on the morning of the half-holiday there is not sufficient time for the staff to complete the essential morning's work in connection with the preparation and serving of dinners before they leave for their half-day. The amendment provides that the staffs of refreshment houses will be released for their weekly half-holiday at 3 p.m., or on the completion of five hours' work, whichever is the earlier. That change will get over the difficulty which proprietors of refreshment houses have experienced, and I understand that no objection to the change has been advanced on behalf of the workers concerned.
I move amendment No. 7:—
Before Section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—
The hours of employment of a member of the staff of a shop, which is a refreshment house, shall not on any day on which such member is allowed a half-holiday, within the meaning of Section 29 of the Principal Act, as amended by this Act, be divided into more than two spells and the period between any such spells shall not exceed one hour in duration.
The practice in the catering trade is to give the staffs their luncheon between the hours of 11 and 12.30; that is, before the pressure of work in connection with the serving of public lunches commences. This amendment provides that, on the morning of the weekly half-holiday, the five hours of work to be performed by the staff shall not be divided into more than two spells and that the interval between such spells shall not exceed more than one hour in duration. The amendment is designed to safeguard the staff of refreshment houses from an unduly long "spread over" of the work and ensures that the total period of employment on the morning of the weekly half-holiday shall not continue for longer than six hours.
I move amendment No. 8:—
Before Section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—
5.—(1) Where the proprietor of a shop which is a refreshment house does not allow a member of the staff of that shop a whole holiday on a Sunday in any week, such proprietor shall allow to him on some day (not being a day on which such proprietor allows him, in pursuance of Part IV of the Principal Act, a whole holiday or a half-holiday) within that week—
(a) in case such member does on that Sunday shop work for more than five hours, a whole holiday, or
(b) in case such member does on that Sunday shop work either (1) for a period of not more than three hours ending after the hour of 12 noon, or (2) for a period of more than three hours but not more than five hours, a half-holiday.
(2) Where—
(a) a member of the staff of a shop which is a refreshment house is entitled in any week to a half-holiday under sub-section (1) of this section, and
(b) the proprietor of such shop allows such member a whole holiday on the day in such week which is in respect of such member a statutory half-holiday,
such proprietor shall be deemed to have allowed such member a half-holiday under this section on that day.
(3) Where—
(a) a member of the staff of a shop which is a refreshment house does shop work on alternate Sundays, and
(b) the proprietor of such shop is, in pursuance of sub-section (1) of this section, required, in respect of shop work done by such member on a Sunday in any week, to allow such member a whole holiday, such proprietor shall be deemed to have complied with such requirement if he allows such member—
(i) a half-holiday on some week day (not being a day which is in respect of such member a statutory half-holiday) within such week, and a half-holiday on some week day (not being a day which is in respect of such member a statutory half-holiday) within the next following week, or
(ii) a whole holiday on the day in such week which is in respect of such member a statutory half-holiday, and a whole holiday on the day in the next following week which is in respect of such member a statutory half-holiday.
(4) If the proprietor of a shop fails, neglects or refuses to comply with the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section, such proprietor shall be guilty of an offence under this section, and shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to the penalties mentioned in the Third Schedule to the Principal Act.
(5) Section 35 of the Principal Act shall not apply in respect of any shop which is a refreshment house.
(6) In this section the expression "statutory half-holiday", when used in relation to a member of the staff of a shop which is a refreshment house, means a day on which such member is allowed a half-holiday under Section 34 of the Principal Act.
This amendment is designed to meet two amendments proposed in the Dáil on behalf of the catering trade and deals with compensatory holidays to the staffs of refreshment houses in lieu of work performed on Sundays. The amendment removes such staffs from Section 35 of the Principal Act, which provides that if they work on a Sunday for more than two hours, but not more than four hours, a half-holiday must be given, while if they work more than four hours a whole holiday must be given in the following week. The amendment provides that for such staffs the two hours may be increased to three hours, provided that these hours are worked by 12 noon and that the four hours may be increased to five hours. If the amendment is accepted, it will mean that an employee of a refreshment house who works up to three hours on a Sunday morning before 12 noon will be entitled to no holiday in lieu; if he works for more than three hours and up to five hours, or if he works three hours or less and this carries him on later than 12 noon, he will be entitled to a half-holiday; while if he works for more than five hours he will be entitled to a whole holiday.
This amendment proposes to substitute five hours, whereas the Principal Act provided that four hours would qualify for a half-holiday.
For a whole holiday.
If he works five hours he gets a whole holiday. Under the Principal Act it is four hours. We are extending it by an hour in each case, because experience has shown that it was imposing difficulties on the carrying on of the trade and the proprietors contended that, in the case of staffs who reside in, it was not unreasonable to ask them to work for three hours on the Sunday morning without a compensatory holiday instead of the two hours which the original Act provided for, and that by this extension a great deal of the difficulties which have been experienced in applying the terms of the Principal Act would be removed for refreshment houses.
I move amendment No. 9:—
Before Section 5 to insert a new section as follows:—
Where—
(a) a person employed as a member of the staff of a refreshment house is provided with dinner at such refreshment house on any day, and
(b) is allowed on that day, for the purpose of partaking of dinner, an interval of not less than forty-five minutes, so arranged as either to end not earlier than 11.45 a.m. or to commence not later than 3 p.m., the provisions of paragraph (1) of Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Principal Act shall be deemed to have been complied with in respect of that person on that day.
Rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Principal Act provides that
"...where the hours of work include the hours from 11.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m., an interval of not less than one hour shall be allowed for dinner, and such interval shall commence between those hours."
The rule provides that it shall be deemed to be complied with where
"...a person employed as a member of the staff of a refreshment house or licensed premises is allowed in any day an interval of not less than one hour, so arranged as either to end not earlier than 11.30 a.m. or to commence not later than 2.30 p.m."
The amendment proposes that in the case of staffs of refreshment houses who are provided with dinner on the premises, the minimum dinner interval of one hour shall be reduced to 45 minutes, and that the outside hours for commencing the dinner interval shall be changed from 10.30 a.m. to 11 a.m. and from 2.30 p.m. to 3 p.m. This reduction in the dinner interval will not create any hardship where the meals are taken on the premises, since 45 minutes under such conditions is a better arrangement than an hour would be in the case of staffs who have to travel to their homes for lunch or to dine in an external premises. Owing to the pressure of work in refreshment houses between 12.30 and 3 p.m., it is essential that all available staffs should be on duty between those hours, and in these circumstances it is difficult to arrange for so long an interval as one hour for lunch, and I am of opinion that this concession should be granted in this industry. I gather from reports of conversations with representatives of the workers concerned that they have no objection to this amendment.
