Trade Union Bill, 1942—Second Stage.

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

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

Unlike its predecessor, the Trade Union Act, 1941, this Bill is a non-controversial measure. It is in fact being introduced in order to give effect to certain amendments to the Trade Union Act of 1941 suggested by trade union organisations. The first amendment is to implement the idea which was in mind when the original Bill was being framed, that employers could negotiate freely with their own employees and that employees could negotiate freely with their own employers, without restriction. The purpose of the first amendment is to remove the obligation to prepare a register of bodies which were excepted from the obligation to have a negotiation licence by reason of that provision. The preparation of such a register is considered unnecessary and might have undesirable consequences, apart from the administrative problems involved in maintaining it.

Secondly, it is proposed to provide that bodies represented on certain statutory boards and committees, such as trade boards, apprenticeship committees, industrial councils, conciliation councils and arbitration boards, will not, by reason of acting on any such body, require to hold a negotiation licence. The third amendment deals with Part III of the original Act, which has not yet come into operation. Under that part of the Act, a trade union could secure, following consideration of an application by a tribunal, the sole right to organise workers of a particular class. The Act provides that, where such a sole right is granted, an appeal can be made to the District Court from the refusal of such a trade union to grant membership to an individual applicant for membership. It was represented that the District Court was not the best type of tribunal to hear such appeals. The amendment suggested is that, where the tribunal decides to grant such a sole right of organisation, it will do so only where it has satisfied itself that the procedure contemplated by that union for the determination by an impartial body of appeals of that kind is, in all the circumstances, satisfactory.

There are only two other amendments, neither of which is important. An amendment was inserted in the 1941 Bill when passing through the Seanad, designed to make it clear that nothing in the Bill would prevent a third party intervening for the purpose of negotiating a settlement in a trade dispute. I am advised that that amendment is unnecessary, that there is in fact nothing in the Bill which would prevent such intervention by a third party, and objection was taken to the amendment as creating a possible danger that the necessity for trade unions to apply for negotiation licences might be removed. The only other amendment is one which makes it unnecessary for officials of the Government, when inspecting trade union registers, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, to pay the prescribed fee.

Mr. O'Connell

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to another point. It is not what is in the Bill but something which should be in it, in view of the interpretation given to one of the provisions of the Principal Act. It is a question of the strength of membership. There are some trade unions registered in Dublin and having members in Northern Ireland as well as in this State of Twenty-Six Counties. It transpires that, at least, the Minister holds the view that the unions applying for negotiating licences and having to lodge the appropriate sum must take into account their members in Northern Ireland as well as in this State. I do not think that was ever intended under the Principal Act. Section 5 (2) of the Principal Act defines a member of a trade union as follows:—

"In this Part of this Act and the Schedule to this Act, the word ‘members', where applicable in respect of a body not registered under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935, means members of such body resident within the State."

When this Bill was going through, it appeared to me that there was no need to mention in it that, in so far as unions registered here were concerned, it applied only to their members resident in the State and not to those outside. In the particular union with which I am connected we felt compelled, although we are an excepted body, to apply for a negotiating licence, and in our case this interpretation of the Principal Act would mean a difference of nearly £200 in the deposit we are compelled to pay to obtain the licence. I do not see why this ruling should be given inside the terms of the Principal Act. The Government of this State has no jurisdiction over the members of trade unions in Northern Ireland. They cannot compel unions to accept members in Northern Ireland or to expel existing members there. If a member of a trade union such as ours in Northern Ireland feels he has any legal right against the union, the courts are open to him. He can come here and proceed against the union because it is a registered union here and can sue and be sued apart from the register. If the Minister still holds with that interpretation, it is only reasonable and proper that some short clause should be inserted in this amending Bill making it clear that membership for the purposes of the deposit means only membership within the State. I think it is quite unreasonable to expect unions to make deposits in respect of members over which neither the Minister nor the State has any jurisdiction whatever. I do not know how many unions are concerned, or how many of those have the greater part of their membership in Northern Ireland, but, as I said, in our case, it means a difference of something like £200. I ask the Minister to make it clear in this measure that the deposit should be related only to membership within the State.

Mr. Douglas

Generally speaking, I have nothing to criticise in the Act which I heard from the Minister is more or less agreed, but I am not quite sure that Section 5 does not require some further amendment. I would be interested to hear the Minister's opinion on the points I wish to make. This is the first occasion on which I have spoken on a Bill of this kind as a trade unionist. For that I may thank the 1941 Act. I want to call attention to Section 5 from the point of view of the individual. It is a most important section. Judging by the 1941 Act, it is clear that the Government attaches considerable importance to the right of appeal, whether the trade union consists of employers or employees, in cases where the body concerned is the only one that can represent the particular trade. That is where the right of the individual comes in. It is a matter of considerable importance because it might involve the right of a man to carry on his trade or employment and both employers and employees are in the same position. It might conceivably be the business of Parliament to consider the matter where there was any evidence that individuals were either being victimised, or where a number of them thought that they were being victimised. This Bill does not tell us, and I appreciate the reason, what kind of appeal body is to be set up. I assume that it is proposed that the tribunal which will approve or otherwise of appeals will be composed of civil servants, and I am not saying anything against them for that.

But, there is nothing to indicate that they will hear any public criticism. The trade union which applies for this special position will put its case before the tribunal and the tribunal will decide if the application is reasonable. A minority of members of the union or, perhaps, a section of the public not members of the union at all, might have some say in the matter. There would be the question of the possible denial of membership which might be necessary for the carrying on of trade or business after the time the union concerned was granted special facilities. I suggest that there should be some provision by which this matter could be raised in public and, if necessary, changed. With the very best intentions in the world, the proposal for the appeal body may be put forward by the trade union and may seem all right to the tribunal, particularly in the beginning, before it has had any experience. In a year's time it is quite possible that the tribunal would decide that the particular type of appeal provided was not workable.

I would like to see some provision for formal approval by the Minister of the form of appeal after it has been passed by the tribunal proposed here. That would retain Parliamentary control and criticism which does not seem to be provided for in this measure. Further, I would also like to see some provision by which a trade union could change the form of appeal in a reasonable time by submitting an alternative. I am not sure that that is in the Bill. As it comes before us, it appears to be too rigid. I take it that the reason why the Minister left it in the open form is that he could not devise a form of appeal suitable to every trade union and he, therefore, left it so as to provide for the different types. If that is the case, it only strengthens the arguments I have already made.

Mr. Lemass

With regard to the point raised by Senator O'Connell, I think there is no doubt that the correct interpretation of the Act requires that, in the case of an Irish union, the amount of deposit required to be made must be calculated on the basis of the total membership of that union. Frankly, I am unable to see that there is any good case to be made for the alteration of that provision. I do not think there are many unions, or that there are ever likely to be many unions, in respect of which the calculation of the required deposit on the basis of total membership will make any substantial difference in the amount of the deposit. It seems to me reasonable enough to require that in the case of Irish unions, the full membership will be taken into account. I could see considerable administrative difficulties, if the provision were modified, in the case of certain classes of unions, the members of which travel freely to and from the North of Ireland, to and from jobs here and there as circumstances occasion. That might not be the case in respect of persons such as teachers who are not so mobile in their search of employment as other types of workers. In these other cases, there is quite a substantial movement of members to and from the North of Ireland in accordance with trade requirements. So far as I know, no other Irish trade union affected by the provision has made any objection to it, and in the case of the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, although the additional deposit required amounts to £200, that additional deposit has got to be related to the total value of the securities lodged which must in any event exceed £6,000, so the additional amount required to be lodged is small in relation to the total deposit required. I dislike amending the Bill, and I do not think there is any case to justify an amendment to exclude the members of Irish unions working outside the territory of the State when calculating the amount of the deposit. I certainly could not undertake to accept such an amendment without having an opportunity of considering its reactions on other Irish unions, that is, unions other than the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, catering for different classes of workers.

I am not sure that I grasped fully the point made by Senator Douglas. Under the Act, a person who is denied membership of a union which has been granted the sole right of organisation can appeal to the District Court. The objection taken to that particular provision was that the District Court might not, in all circumstances, prove to be a suitable tribunal for the determination of such appeals. I had to admit the force of that contention because it might not be possible to get the court to understand fully without a very lengthy hearing all the circumstances that might justifiably influence the policy of a trade union in the matter of the admission of new members. We, consequently, propose to amend the Bill by inserting a more general provision. The provision requires that, when a union applies for the sole right of organisation, it will state the form of procedure it proposes to follow in the matter of the determination of such appeals, and the sole right of organisation will not be conceded unless the procedure is approved by the tribunal, and provides for the consideration of appeals by an arbitrator or an appellate body approved of, or selected in accordance with procedure approved of by the tribunal.

I intimated to the representatives of the trade union movement who discussed the matter with me that I would consider a satisfactory arrangement to be the appointment of an appeals body by a central organisation like the Trade Union Congress, that is, a body that may be trusted not merely by the State but by the individual workers to be impartial in all questions in conflict between the unions and individual members of these unions, or persons applying for membership of them. In the case of employers' trade unions, a somewhat similar procedure can be followed. I do not think that the wording of the section requires that the detailed procedure for the appointment of an arbitrator need be set out in such a manner as to make it impossible to alter the procedure or to be rigid.

I think that a union, going to the tribunal and applying for the sole right of organisation and undertaking to abide by the awards of any arbitration body appointed by the Trade Union Congress to deal with matters of that kind, would be acting in accordance with the intention of the section. Similarly a masters' organisation making application and agreeing to refer appeals to an appellate body appointed by some federation of masters' organisations would be regarded as conforming to the requirements of the section. In any event, the intention of the amendment is to make the procedure contemplated under the original Act less rigid, not to make it more rigid.

Mr. Douglas

Can the Minister say if a form of appeal is agreed upon, and if after the tribunal has been working for a year or a year and a half, an alteration is found necessary, it can be carried out? I doubt it very much.

Mr. Lemass

I do not see why not. In the case of a workers' trade union, the circumstances I contemplate arising are that the Irish Trade Union Congress will appoint an arbitration tribunal which will decide all such questions in relation to unions that have the sole right of organisation. If any union goes to the tribunal and applies for such right, they will give an undertaking that they will agree to abide by the decisions of the board appointed by the Trade Union Congress. I do not think that the exact procedure for the selection of members of that appellate body, or for the appointment of an arbitrator, should be fixed once and for all when the first sole right of organisation is given. I think an arrangement can be easily made which will provide that the procedure for the selection can be altered while keeping the nature of the body unchanged fundamentally. I mean, it will be a body chosen by a central organisation representative of trade unions and consequently impartial as between the interests of trade unions and individual trade unionists.

Mr. Douglas

I had in mind employers' organisations which have no central body. However, I shall not press the point further.

Mr. O'Connell

I would like the Minister to give consideration to the point I raised.

Mr. Lemass

I have discussed these various provisions of the 1941 Act with representatives of the trade union movement and in no case was it suggested to me that that provision which requires the calculation of the deposit on the basis of the total membership of a trade union was a harsh provision or required amendment. The only union which has made representations to me on that point is the Irish National Teachers' Association, and I have had no opportunity to examine the possible reactions on other cases of a different kind.

Mr. O'Connell

In some cases it would make no difference, as they would have to pay the maximum sum anyhow. For instance, Senator Foran's union has to pay the maximum, and I think there may be other unions in the same position.

Mr. Lemass

They are craft unions.

Mr. Foran

With regard to the question of deposits, if the Minister makes any change to meet the point raised by Senator O'Connell, I think he will find it more difficult to carry on. The Trade Union Congress recognises the 32 Counties, and their affiliations cover unions in the 32 Counties. If the Minister were nailed down to those members in the Six Counties, it would mean a lot of bother. With regard to the other point, because a certain union paid the maximum I do not think the matter would affect them in the financial sense at all. They would have a much greater grievance if they had to divorce their members in the Six Countries and would feel much more worried about that than about the amount paid in deposit.

Question put and agreed to.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Nov 1942