Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Apr 1945

Vol. 29 No. 25

Arbitration Tribunal for Agriculture—Motion.

Mr. Counihan

I move:—

That the Seanad is of opinion that the Government should introduce as early as practicable legislative proposals for the establishment of an arbitration tribunal to which all labour disputes in the agricultural industry would be compulsorily referred for determination during the period in which the Compulsory Tillage Regulations are in force.

I have no intention of interfering with any of the rights or privileges of agricultural workers. I do not even intend that the motion should interfere with their right to strike or in any way interfere with the agitation for higher wages. The object of the motion is to curb in some way the activities of Labour organisers or Labour delegates in attempting to force an agricultural worker to leave his employment during the period of the emergency. I have always urged that the agricultural worker is the most important man in the country, next to the farmer, and that he should get the highest wage which the industry can afford to pay. I am sure that under the Agricultural Wages Board that has been achieved and when that has been done, I do not believe any Labour organiser has the right to call out agricultural workers during the present emergency.

I have been told by some of my Labour friends that it is against the first principles of democracy to legislate in any way to prevent strikes or lock-outs. I am afraid that in advocating that they do not know the first thing about democracy. Democracy, from the Labour point of view, is what suits themselves and what suits nobody else. Democracy, in my opinion, means equal rights and privileges for all, and if we allow the agricultural worker to go on strike during those times or allow an organiser to call him out on strike, we cannot legitimately prevent a farmer from going on strike. If that happened during the present time or at any time during the past five years, the country would starve. If the farmer did not produce food and the agricultural worker did not help to save the crops, what would have been the position of the country during all those years of the emergency?

The position of farmers and agricultural workers under present Government Tillage Orders and Agricultural Wages Orders is in no way comparable to that of employers and workers in any other industry or business. The farmer is compelled by law to till a certain amount of his arable land. He is compelled to grow a certain amount of wheat and to pay his workers a fixed minimum wage, but the owner of any other business or industry is permitted to pay his workers the lowest wages the workers will accept. There is no legal obligation on any other producer to keep his industry going. He can lock out his men, close his premises and there will not be any great loss to the country, but if the farmers and the agricultural workers went on strike then disaster would occur. For those reasons, I am sure, the House will agree that, at least, during the period of compulsory tillage, it should be made a penal offence for any labour organiser, or any person, to conspire, counsel or induce agricultural workers to go on strike or leave their employment. In 1936, the Oireachtas passed an Agricultural Wages Act, with, I am sure, the full approval of the Labour Party, for the Labour Party and the Government were then hand-in-glove.

Mr. Hayes

Oh, shame!

Mr. Counihan

Under that Act a wages board was set up, consisting of equal representatives of farmers and agricultural workers, to fix the wages of farm labourers. The wages were then 18/- and 24/- a week, and the board has fixed the wage, over the past 12 months, at 41/6 and 46/- a week, an average of 200 per cent. of an increase since 1936. Many farmers complain that the wage is more than they can afford to pay, and I believe that the worker on a small farm has more for his labour than the farmer has. I think that that was very definitely proved by Senator Tunney in the statement that he gave from his friend, the Tourmakeady farmer, who said that he could not exist on the return from his farm for the last two or three years.

Mr. Tunney

That was an uneconomic holding.

Mr. Counihan

The Agricultural Wages Act is still the law, and the farmer must pay the minimum wage, whether he can afford it or not, to every worker he employs. No matter how incompetent or how lazy the worker may be, the board will see that the agricultural worker gets the full minimum wage laid down by the wages board, with the appropriate overtime. The agricultural workers, are, I believe, the only workers in any industry who must be paid a fixed wage by Government Order.

Mr. Duffy

That is not so.

Mr. Counihan

Well, the Senator may be right, but I do not know of any other.

Mr. Duffy

There are at least 18 others.

Mr. Counihan

The farmer must obey every Government Order. He must pay a minimum wage. He must till his full quota and grow a certain amount of wheat, even though he may be so circumstanced that he is not in a position to comply with those Orders. He may be short of machinery; he may be short of capital; and in several ways he might not be able to comply with the Order. Still, the Minister will take no excuse from the farmer, at all events. He must till his quota and comply with the regulations. I know farmers, a good few of them, who, under certain circumstances, were not able to comply with the Minister's Tillage Orders, and they had to give their land for nothing. I know of two or three cases where they paid other people to till their land for them in order to comply with the Government regulations. I am not complaining about those Government regulations. They were passed with the full approval of every Party in the Oireachtas, and I am sure that the Minister had to adopt very drastic measures to see that those regulations were carried out in order to preserve the security of having sufficient food for the people of this country. I do complain, however, and I say that the Government should have taken action to prevent any Labour organiser or his satellites from usurping Government functions and Government Orders in contravention of the Agricultural Wages Act, as was done in a few cases in the County Dublin. We all know of the case where one of the Labour Party's organisers, or a delegate or satellite, or whatever he was—this happened to be an organiser of the Labour Party——

Mr. Duffy

Nothing of the kind ever happened.

Mr. Counihan

Nothing of the kind ever happened? Well, at any rate, it was reported in the Press. I am only quoting what appeared in the Press, and the Labour Party never contradicted it.

Mr. Duffy

I suggest that we should see the Press quotation. I cannot accept what the Senator says.

Mr. Counihan

In this particular case the agricultural workers agreed with the farmer to thresh his corn at a specified price per hour. The price, as stated in the Press, was 2/- per hour, for which they agreed to thresh his corn during the period of the threshing. The Labour Party organiser came to the farm and ordered the men out and told them that they should not go to work at that price. The workers refused to go out on the first day, but the organiser got the engine driver and the mill owner to leave the yard, with the result that the mill could not be worked and his corn could not be threshed.

Mr. Duffy

I am complaining about the suggestion that——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator will get an opportunity of making his case later on. Senator Counihan may proceed.

Mr. Duffy

He should give the reference.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator will get an opportunity later.

Mr. Baxter

I think it might make matters clear if Senator Counihan would mention the union.

Mr. Counihan

He belonged to the Workers' Union of Ireland.

Mr. Baxter

That might clear it up.

Mr. Counihan

I do not know what connection the Labour Party has with the Workers' Union of Ireland, but at any rate that was stated in the Press. I need not say that many of the farmers are not enamoured of the Workers' Union of Ireland, but in the County Dublin we all got circulars asking us to agree to the wages laid down by one of the organisers or leaders, or the secretary, or whatever he was, of that union. Very few complied with his request. But half a dozen or so, dairy men, market gardeners, and a few engine drivers, came along and fixed the price which would prevail in the County Dublin for agricultural workers, according to this organiser.

Some of the people did not agree to it, and we know the result. I do not intend to go into it, but that is the fact; I got one of the circulars myself. The farmers who fixed the price for agricultural workers do not represent one-fiftieth of the agricultural industry even in the County Dublin. The few labourers who are in that organisation would not account for one-hundredth part of the agricultural workers in Ireland. Those are the people who want to rule the show, and dictate to the farmers and to the agricultural workers.

We have 160,000 agricultural workers in Éire. Of these, 40,000 are fed, housed and kept by the farmers. Does the Labour Party or the Minister or anybody else think that incidents such as I have described make for peace or good fellowship between the farmers and the agricultural workers? I feel very strongly about this, although it never affected me. I never had a dispute with a worker in my life. I find that the agricultural workers are the most decent class of men in any section of this country, but when you get that class of organiser going about intimidating them, they try to be loyal to their class, and it is then the trouble commences. A good deal of that happened. I say it is leading up to anarchy to allow it to continue. We have the example of what happened in Waterford 20 years ago when there was very little law or order in the country. The organisers started in Waterford and Tipperary. The farmers were not very prosperous, and they resisted their demands. The agricultural workers went out and burned the farmers' houses and straw, and spiked their corn fields and meadows. The farmers retaliated by beating up the workers and burning labourers' cottages. If we want that sort of thing to develop again, we have only to follow the lead of the Workers' Union of Ireland and we will get it.

Mr. Baxter

That is what they want.

Mr. Counihan

Those are the conditions they want. I know several members of the Labour Party——

Mr. Baxter

They do not want it.

Mr. Counihan

——and the majority of them are most decent men. I can count nearly all of them as friends of mine, and I say they do not want those conditions. Members of the Labour Party that I know would subscribe to nothing like that. Senator Duffy put me off; I did not intend to develop that at all.

Mr. Duffy

You are doing well.

Mr. Hayes

Splendidly.

Mr. Baxter

You exonerated his organisation, so he is all right.

Mr. Counihan

There were other demands made by delegates to stop threshings. There was one in North Dublin, where a delegate from Swords came to Lusk and interviewed a farmer before the threshing started. He said: "Nobody must be employed here unless he is a member of the Workers' Union of Ireland." A Lusk man and a Rush man replied: "No Swords man is to be employed on this mill or we will not work." That went very near to being a breach of the peace. The Lusk men fired the Swords men out of the farmer's place. It is the duty of the Government to stop that kind of thing, at least during the period of the emergency. It is the fault not of the farm workers but of the labour organisers. The farmers have no objection to their workers being members of any trade union, but they certainly object to being bossed by trade union officials from the city who know absolutely nothing about labour conditions or about farming conditions. That was clearly demonstrated by Senator Tunney when speaking to the last motion. I heard him definitely state here that he saw beef cattle sold in the Dublin market at 5d. per lb., and sold in steaks in Dublin at 1/5 per lb. Both statements are wrong.

Mr. Tunney

Not very much.

Mr. Counihan

There was not a "screw" for the canning factory sold at 5d. per lb. on the Dublin market. At the time Senator Tunney was talking about they were making 1/- a lb. At that particular time the best of them were making 60/- a cwt. live weight. Best steaks were not sold at 1/5 per lb. either. That is the sort of labour organiser with whom the farmers and agricultural workers have to contend. I think Senator Tunney is the agricultural expert of the Labour Party, and I suppose he knows a lot more about it than the others who are trying to dictate to us and to our agricultural workers. I do not want to say anything that would upset the friendship between myself and my friends in the Labour Party but I say that strikes and lock-outs are much too prevalent, particularly in Dublin. I feel that commonsense people, particularly the commonsense Labour Party, should try to put forward some scheme to stop strikes and lock-outs for a period of five years. I would appeal to the Labour Party to consider that. We are now at the parting of the ways, and we should try to have workers and employers pulling together in a more amicable way than they are doing at the present time. I do not want to refer to some of the strikes which occurred in Dublin recently, I think they were a disgrace to the Dublin workers—the gas strike, the turf strike, and a few others. The Labour Party and the organisers said they were unofficial strikes, but they came in at the finish to try to get their way.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

This motion deals with the agricultural workers.

Mr. Counihan

Very well. I am surprised you let me go so far. I would appeal to the House to consider this motion, and I would appeal to the Minister to see if something can be done to stop those organisers from going about and interfering with men who are trying to do their work and are not allowed to do it. It is up to the Minister and to the Government to see that that will stop, particularly during this period of emergency.

Mr. Summerfield

I have pleasure in seconding the motion proposed by Senator Counihan, as the principle it embodies affects factories as well as farms and suggests a development that, in my opinion, is badly needed. I think that we should all feel ashamed that, after 20 centuries of Christian-community existence, we have, so far, failed to evolve a procedure governing employer-employee relationships which would render strikes and lock-outs unnecessary and impossible. Enlightened employers to-day want, and seek, happy relationships with their staffs. Strikes or lock-outs cause bad feeling, often get out of control, and leave behind them a trail of tragedy and misery hard to estimate. It is further true to say that any disturbance in the even flow of the production of goods, agricultural or otherwise, entails an irrecoverable loss to the nation. The nation cannot afford hold-ups in production, especially in the case of the farmer. In saying all this, I have no wish, nor do I seek, to deprive the worker of his jealously-guarded right to strike. It is tragically true that he was often compelled by circumstances to use it. I am making a plea for the setting up of machinery which would put the worker in such a position that he would cheerfully agree to put his right to strike into cold storage and leave it there unless dire necessity caused him to bring it out.

Organised labour to-day in farm and workshop is, in the main, well led and controlled by experienced and skilful leaders and, on the employers' side, there are organised bodies of farmers and industrialists quite willing to discuss the many problems that arise in connection with employment. In my opinion, the strike, or lock-out, method of dealing with disputes between employer and employee is humiliating, brutal and unintelligent. It is humiliating, because there is no dignity in the sight of shivering human beings, in bad weather, picketing the premises in which they normally find their employment. It is brutal, because it is reckless of consequences, and is unintelligent, because, of itself, it settles nothing, the matters in dispute having ultimately to be disposed of by negotiation. When disputes result in strike or lock-out action, no side really wins. Both lose, in fact, and the nation, as a whole, has, willy-nilly, to bear part of the loss. I feel it is no exaggeration to suggest that, so long as strikes and lock-outs are an accepted part of our everyday life, they challenge our claim to be properly civilised.

Should this motion be accepted by the House and the Government, as I hope it will, its immediate effect should be the outlawing of the lightning strike or lock-out. Experience has shown that, where lightning strikes or lock-outs take place, on no matter how trivial a pretext, they are very difficult to control and, if we can envisage a situation where, when disputes unfortunately do arise, they must be referred to an arbitration court of experienced men, the interval between the creation of the grievance and its ultimate hearing by an arbitration court would prevent hasty, hotheaded action that even the coolest heads would find it difficult to handle. It is generally agreed that in all forms of activity—in farm or in factory—we shall have to deal with tremendous problems when the war ends and, if we are to have a well-ordered, progressive national economy, we must get rid of the mutual fear and suspicion that have so often caused trouble between employer and employee in the past. The worker on farm or in workshop is entitled to, and must get, decent and reasonable working conditions and the employer is entitled to have his difficulties and problems discussed. In my opinion, therefore, both sides would be well served by properly constituted arbitration boards or tribunals. My own experience, meeting trade union leaders on emergency bonus tribunals during the past three years, encourages me in the belief that such arbitration boards or tribunals would be successful and, in seconding the motion now before the House, I hope it will meet with general support and, ultimately become a practical reality.

Mr. P.J. O'Reilly

I support the motion because the logic of the situation, as put by Senator Counihan, seems to be very simple. If the Government requires farmers to do certain things, obviously they cannot do those things if labour makes demands with which the farmers are not able to comply. It seems to me to be a very simple issue, and the motion seems to be the logical consequence of Government policy. For those reasons, I support it. I do not know what the attitude of the representatives of labour is, but since Senator Counihan contemplates the operation of this motion only during the emergency period, it should, I think, appeal to labour. I should be glad to see labour supporting the motion, so that it would be carried unanimously. I do not know what the attitude of the Minister is, but if he had the unanimous opinion of the House behind him he would have something to go upon. The strike is a barbarous method of settling things, and the whole tendency is to get rid of that relic of barbarous times, and to reach a more civilised way of settling our difficulties. I support the motion.

Mr. O'Dea

I did not intend to speak on this motion, but I am entitled to do so for the reason that I do not think I have ever voted against an increase of wages for any man. I am supposed, in a certain company to which I belong, to have fought more for high wages than any trade union member ever did. I like high wages. I abhor the state of affairs to which Senator Counihan has alluded. I heard from another farmer, who is not a member of this House, that farmers in and around the city were being unfairly interfered with. Trade unions have done a tremendous amount of good. I believe that decent trade unions adopt decent methods. They have brought labour into its own, and I do not believe that it is trade unions which are responsible for adopting the methods referred to. The farmer who spoke to me was not sure that the people who were going around belonged to a trade union at all. He rather thought that they did not. He thought that they were people who wanted strikes, not for the sake of high wages but for the damage that would be done to the country.

People sometimes condemn trade unions because they look for high wages. They call the members Bolshevists. I say that the people who want high wages are not Bolshevists but people who want security. Very often, those who do not want high wages are people who desire to cause loss that may be irreparable. That is a terribly dangerous thing to allow and I should be in favour of putting a stop to it. However, I do not know what the best method is. It is hard to prevent, by law, people from doing what they want to do. By breaking the law, they very often achieve their objects better than if they did not break the law. I suggest that the Minister should consider this matter for a few months, that the motion should be left over to enable him to do that and that it be reconsidered later.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

I support the motion because I believe in its principle. I also think that this question of arbitration should not be confined to issues between the farmer and the agricultural labourer. It should also apply to those who are referred to as black-coat workers. It should also apply to those engaged in the Civil Service——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

That is another matter, altogether, Senator. We are dealing with this particular motion.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

I am giving the reason why I am supporting it.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Yes, proceed.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

I hold that we should endeavour to curtail the possibilities of trouble at all times. I think that the principle underlying the motion is a good one. The fact is that you can have reasonable men on both sides of the fence, engaged in production and at work. That principle should apply also to other services, and there is no reason why Government employees should not also have the right to arbitration. I am supporting the motion and giving my reasons, although I am afraid that the Chair thinks I am out of order. But, I do not think, myself, that I am.

Mr. Kyle

I was very interested to hear Senator Counihan's reasons for the motion which he has asked the House to consider. I feel that if there had been adequate negotiating machinery for the regulation of wages in the agricultural industry, disputes would have rarely, if ever, taken place and as there has been mention in the discussion on the earlier motion, the fault really lies in the fact that in the settlement of agricultural wages no adequate machinery has been established. There is no machinery, in short, to set up a tribunal or board composed of equal numbers of union representatives and farmers' representatives. The unions to which the work people belong should have the right to have their spokesmen on wages boards. Such machinery does not exist in the agricultural industry. It was the subject of a motion which has since been withdrawn and is, I think, the real kernel of the situation. If that adequate machinery was in existence there need not have been any dispute between farmers and agricultural workers in the County of Dublin.

I notice also that Senator Counihan did not refer to his famous or rather infamous milk strike, when the farmers poured the milk down the drains——

Mr. Baxter

There was an earlier strike——

Mr. O'Dea

All strikes are bad.

Mr. Baxter

——in the creameries many years ago.

Mr. Kyle

There was, and as Senator Summerfield said, men do not strike for the love of striking. Men strike as a last resort to try to get human conditions of labour, and the fact that a farm labourer is working for 41/6 per week is nothing to be proud of from the farmers' point of view.

Mr. Counihan rose.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator must be allowed to proceed with his speech.

Mr. Kyle

I never suggested that we should go as far as Senator Counihan suggested in an amendment to the previous motion, where he said that the agricultural worker should get a higher wage.

Mr. Counihan

The highest wage that the industry can pay.

Mr. Kyle

We never went as far as that. I think it should be obvious to everybody that we never went so far.

Mr. Counihan

Well, I think more about agricultural workers, perhaps, than the Senator.

Mr. Duffy

Who is making the speech?

Mr. Kyle

The Senator says "the highest wage that the industry can afford to pay". Some statistics published by the Government recently showed that the farming community had benefited more than the industrial community and the industrial worker, and more than the agricultural worker, during the last four years, so that if a trade union were to ask for what the industry could pay, we might get for the agricultural worker a great deal more than 41/6 or 65/- per week, which is something round what the agricultural worker should have.

The proposal we are speaking about now, Sir, is rather vaguely drawn. It says that the Minister should introduce a scheme, "as early as practicable." I suppose those are the operative words. We shall wait with interest to see whether Senator Counihan will not accept the rather wise suggestion of Senator O'Dea. If he does not, we shall await with interest the proposals that might emanate from the Government in regard to the setting up of compulsory arbitration machinery. All I want to say now on behalf of the trade union movement is that we shall oppose compulsory arbitration as far as we can.

Mr. Foran

I have been listening to this debate all through, and I am regarded as one of the more moderate trade union officials. I have heard it said that the strike is the most objectionable and hopeless weapon. Let me say that I revel in a strike, and that I claim that because of the strikes in which I took part over a long period, the workers have been raised from comparative slavery to comparative freedom. If it were not for the early strikes which Senator Baxter remembers, in the creameries, these workers would be leading the slavish existence to-day which they were forced to lead at that time. Senator Counihan mentioned a strike in which I had a big part. We lost a strike when we won the war. But we certainly got a wages board, and we got recognition for the agricultural labourers which they had not got before it. Consequently, I do not see anything derogatory in a strike.

As Senator Kyle has said, and it is my own belief, men strike only for their rights. Occasionally, abuses may creep in and a strike situation may be badly handled, but, in the main, take away the right to strike from the trade union movement and what have we got? What have we got to enforce our views against the farmer or the industrialist in this country? They do not give us wages and conditions for love of us. Neither do they give them to us through motives of Christian charity. It comes down to the fact that we must rely on our organisation and our determination.

Mr. Baxter

Agricultural labourer are not in any organisation at all.

Mr. Foran

They were at the time I am talking about. I had the pleasure of meeting them in many a successful dispute and the fact that the Government set up a wages board is due to the fact that they were organised sufficiently to claim the right to a wages board. It is regrettable that they are not organised to-day. I believe the conditions would be very much better if they were organised nearly as well as their fellows in the towns and cities and that they would enjoy the comparative independence of their comrades.

As regards compulsory arbitration, we think that that has been tried in other countries, in highly industrialised countries, and that it has not got the results expected from it and never will. In neighbouring countries where there is war you have men with grievances looking at the employers getting profits out of the war industry and believing they are entitled to a share of the fat that is going. Then they had a strike and they have been summoned, but even with all the force of the law they had to forgo those fines and plead with the men to carry on their work. When it failed there I do not think it is going to be tried here, and if it is tried I do not think it is going to be a success. What have farmers to complain of regarding strikes during the emergency? Agricultural labourers are most quiescent people. There were two isolated incidents in County Dublin related by Senator Counihan and for that they are going to impose a penalty on the whole agricultural community and thereby give a lead to Senator Sweetman——

Mr. Hayes

Senator Summerfield, there is a big distinction.

Mr. Foran

——to impose compulsory arbitration in this country. All I want to say as one who does not agree with some of the people who believe that they are great and brilliant leaders is that they are barking up the wrong trees; they will never impose compulsory arbitration on the working classes of this country. This is the thin edge of the wedge. If the agricultural worker can be made to accept compulsory arbitration it can be applied generally. As one with vast experience in the trades union movement both with workers in the country and in the city I want to say that no one would impose that horrible condition of compulsory arbitration on the workers.

Minister for Agriculture (Dr. Ryan)

I think that the only person who spoke here who had any sympathy with the strike or spoke well of strikes is Senator Foran. Everyone agrees that strikes are to be avoided. It must be evident that strikers have to be maintained when they are idle. The men belonging to the unions are paid but they have in turn to make up for that by paying a levy while they are working. If they did not have to pay that levy, in other words, if strikes were completely eliminated they would have a higher spending power during their working hours and their working time would be uninterrupted. The question is to find a way to avoid strikes. I do not think there is any use in the Government or the Oireachtas bringing in an Act unless it is going to be effective. I do not think it can be effective unless the leaders on both sides are agreeable to such legislation. It is fairly evident that the leaders in this House, as far as they are represented on the Labour side, are not agreeable.

I do not know how it is to be done. You cannot compel the agricultural labourer or anyone else to work. You may make it illegal to have strike pay where a dispute has not been referred to arbitration or to have picketing, but an agricultural labourer or any other labourer can say: "I am a law-abiding citizen, but I am not going to work for that wage. I refuse to work for that wage, and what can you do about it?" Unless the leaders of the employers on one side and the leaders of the employees on the other side agree that such legislation is desirable and workable there is no use in bringing it in.

Mr. Counihan

But can you not prevent an organiser from calling out the men?

Dr. Ryan

I admit that you can do that. You can make it illegal for organisers to go and incite the men; you can make it illegal to give strike pay; you can make it illegal to picket, but you cannot go so far as to make the men work. The organiser can carry on his duties quietly if it is made illegal to do so in a public way. Another point is that I do not think it will be possible to isolate agriculture as an industry in this case. To that extent I agree with what Senator Summerfield said to the effect that the whole question should be taken together. If it is possible to get some sort of legislation on this matter of strikes and lock-outs by having conciliation and arbitration compulsory, if that can be done for all industries, well and good, but I do not see that we should go to the trouble and take up the time of the Oireachtas in legislating for one particular industry unless we have a scheme which is workable all round. I have always thought that the machinery set up for dealing with agricultural wages comes nearest perfection. It works in this way: If the representatives of the employers and the representatives of the employees agree upon a wage, that is the wage.

Nothing could be nearer conciliation than that. There are representatives of both parties there to discuss the matter. That is the nearest thing you can get to conciliation. If they do not agree then the chairman, having heard the arguments on both sides, comes to a decision and that appears to be as near as you can get to arbitration. It is not compulsory arbitration. They only fix the minimum wage and it is up to any farmer to pay a higher wage if he wishes. That is where the point comes in that there may be a strike, though certain agricultural workers in a certain district may believe that the wage is not the wage they are entitled to and that the farmer can pay more. They strike for a higher wage. There were one or two statements made that I do not think were correct, or rather I should say I do not think I agree with them. I do not agree with the Senator who said the union should be represented on these boards. I do not know any union representing the agricultural labourer. Perhaps Senator Counihan was exaggerating when he said there was not one out of 100 in a union, but I do not think it is far from the truth. It might be two out of 100 if it was gone into completely but it is not five in every 100. It was admitted when the Agricultural Wages Bill was going through the Dáil and Seanad that it was impossible to get labourers, or farmers for that matter, because there was no farmers' union, to put representatives directly on the board, and I defy any farmer or labourers' representative listening to point out in the discussions in the Dáil or the Seanad where any member advocated that either farmers or labourers should be directly represented. No body had the cheek to do it because everybody knew it was impossible to get such a body. Neither the farmers nor the labourers had a union and the only thing that could be done was to ask the Minister to appoint representatives for them. That is what has been done, and that is what must be done, until we have a farmers' union which is largely representative of farmers and an agricultural labourers' union that represents at least, say, 20 per cent. of the labourers, and I am not asking very much in that.

As to the recent strike in County Dublin, there was one feature of the demand which appeared to me to be unfair. I saw the circular, and it asked employers to give an increase of 4/- in wages. I know one employer at least who got that circular and he was asked—it was a demand—that he should give 4/- more, although in fact he was paying 8/- or 10/- more than the minimum wage, while employers paying only the minimum wage were also asked to give an increase of 4/-. It was quite obvious that it was the sort of demand that was not just to all employers and which was made without a great deal of thought. However, as Senator Foran said, we should not be influenced in whatever decision we come to by a few isolated incidents. My last word is this. I do not see that an arbitration board of this kind could be made effective. I would be in favour of such a system if it could be worked, but, after all, if we cannot make it effective, what is the use of setting it up?

Mr. Counihan

Could you not prevent Labour organisers from going around the country and taking out men when they do not want to go out?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the Senator withdrawing the motion?

Mr. Counihan

The debate has not finished at all yet.

Debate adjourned.

The Seanad adjourned at 9.5 p.m., until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 25th April, 1945.