Holidays (Employees) Amendment Bill, 1947—Second Stage.

Mr. Duffy

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. This Bill is of a very limited character. It proposes to amend one section of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1939, and to amend it to a very limited extent. As the House will remember, the Holidays (Employees) Act provides that certain classes of wage earners shall be entitled to annual leave and that during the period of annual leave shall be paid their salaries or wages, as the case may be. In the case of the ordinary employee that is a simple matter. An employee whose wages are £3 or £5 a week is entitled to two weeks' pay when he goes on annual leave and receives his two weeks' ordinary wages in respect of the period of his holidays. It is somewhat different where the employed person is living indoor. Employees living indoor will be, very largely, domestic employees or shop-assistants. In the smaller towns there would be a number of shop-assistants living indoor. The Act provides that when they are away on holidays those who are living indoor are entitled to be paid an allowance in respect of board and lodgings. Outside the four county boroughs and the Borough of Dún Laoghaire, the allowance is 7d. per day or 4/1 per week. In the case of the four boroughs and the Borough of Dún Laoghaire the sum to which a shop-assistant or domestic servant is entitled as compensation for the board and lodging to which he or she is entitled when employed, is 1/- per day, or 7/- per week.

Any member of the House will appreciate that the allowance of 1/- in the county borough and 7d. outside the county boroughs is grotesque in existing circumstances. The proposal in the Bill is to increase the sum paid in lieu of board and lodgings to 1/6 per day or 10/6 per week outside the county boroughs and to 2/- per day or 14/- per week in the four county boroughs and the Borough of Dún Laoghaire. If it were necessary to institute comparisons I would draw attention first to the fact that in July last the Minister for Local Government sanctioned an allowance of 16/- per week in lieu of board and lodgings for attendants in mental hospitals. Most members of the House are aware that usually a mental hospital is in a small town. There are no mental hospitals in the county boroughs, with one exception, Grangegorman. All the mental hospitals are in places like Letterkenny, Clonmel, Portrane. Yet the allowance sanctioned by the Minister for Local Government is 16/- per week in lieu of board and lodgings.

I notice that an agreement was made between the railway companies and their employees in June or July last whereby a railway workman who is away from home gets a meal allowance of 1/6 per day. In the case of such a man having to be away from home for a period not exceeding two weeks the allowance is 3/6 per night or 5/- per day and night, that is 30/- a week for a trained man on top of his wages, if he is to be away from home for a period of two weeks.

Generally speaking, the allowance which is considered necessary to cover the cost of board and lodgings is usually 30/- a week. I am sorry Senator Counihan is absent. He was talking to me the other day about the allowance which is paid in County Dublin to agricultural workers living indoor, when they go on holidays. The allowance is 30/- a week.

It seems that if there is any fault to be found with this Bill it is the fault that the allowance claimed is totally inadequate. I should say, however, that in fixing the amount I was more or less guided by the fact that the original rate fixed was extremely low and I felt that I would not be justified in exceeding the original figure beyond a particular percentage, but I do not think that anybody in the House would assert that the figure I have taken was unreasonable—1/6 a day or 10/6 a week outside a county borough and 2/- a day or 14/- a week within a county borough —to cover not merely board but board and lodgings. I would appeal to the House to support this measure.

Mr. Kyle

I second the motion for the Second Reading which has been proposed by Senator Duffy. This is a simple measure and a reform which will benefit a very limited number of people who, however, are unable to do very much for themselves. I am sure that the modest proposals contained in it will find a sympathetic response in members of the Seanad, that they will be able to do something for this class of the community whose members have not been able to do very much for themselves.

The Bill deals with domestic servants and, in a few instances, with shop-assistants who have to live in; and the proposals contained in it will not break the employers of either class because of the particular advantage sought in the Bill. I hope the Bill will meet with that sympathetic response from this House that those unfortunate people are entitled to receive, and I have great pleasure in seconding the motion.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

When the Holidays (Employees) Act was introduced, persons employed as domestic workers were, generally speaking, receiving comparatively low wages and on that account they required the protection of legislation passed by the Oireachtas to an extent greater even than the other low-wage workers. It could be even argued, I suppose, that in normal circumstances domestic workers have a special case for protection by means of legislation, because of the circumstances of their employment and because their rather intimate personal relations with their employers make their organisation on a trade union basis impossible.

The position of domestic workers has, however, changed very considerably since the Act was passed. It is common knowledge that the rates of wages paid to them have increased proportionately more than the increases secured by other workers and the competition which exists for their services at the present time has given them an independence which they did not previously enjoy.

Domestic workers who are employed on a basis of remuneration which includes weekly or monthly wages, plus full board and lodging, have been less seriously affected by the rise in the cost of living than other workers who must necessarily purchase foodstuffs out of their earnings; and the increase in money wages which these domestic workers have secured, plus that other factor to which I have referred, means that they have obtained a relatively greater improvement in their pre-war standard of living than any other class of workers. The fact that the Act requires that they should be paid their wages during the period of annual holidays and that the wages have increased in money value considerably since the beginning of the war, is of far more significance to those workers, in calculating the amount of money available at holiday time, than the amounts provided in the Holidays (Employees) Act in respect of payment in lieu of accommodation.

I think, however, that it would be agreed that that particular provision of the Act requires revision. When the Act was being framed, it was recognised that the institution of new legal conditions regarding domestic workers might be onerous on farming families in the circumstances then prevailing and it was generally agreed, I think, that farmers in that period would have some difficulty in providing extra cash payments—at any rate, that the provision of extra cash payments would be of greater difficulty to them than the provision of board and lodging in their own households. It was repeatedly emphasised at that time—and it is necessary, perhaps, to re-state—that the Act provided certain minimum conditions to which employers must conform or commit an offence against the law. There is, of course, no restriction on any employer giving far more liberal terms than required in the Act to any worker employed by him.

There is a revision of that Act proceeding. I have had representations from trade unions concerning some of its provisions and it seems to me that, arising out of those representations, some amendment will be required. Also, in the course of the years during which the Act has been in operation, certain anomalies have emerged which it will be necessary to put right, and I was contemplating a general review of the legislation. Although some of the anomalies to which I have referred became apparent shortly after the Act was passed, they were not of themselves sufficiently urgent in character to justify amending legislation to deal with them alone. I think that, to some extent, the proposal in this Bill may be so described.

In the circumstances now existing, I do not think it can be said to be urgent that this further legislative protection should be given to domestic workers. They have a bargaining capacity at present which they had not got previously and, on the whole. I regard it as desirable that all the law relating to holidays with pay should be in the one measure. It is generally recognised as undesirable that we should have a basic Act with a number of amending measures relating to details. Therefore, I would ask Senator Duffy not to press his Bill now. I do so on the basis that a Bill to revise a number of the provisions of the Holidays Act of 1939 will be necessary, if it is desired to take action on the recommendations made by trade unions and to remove the anomalies to which I have referred.

I would not like Senator Duffy to think that, in proposing that he should not proceed with this measure at the present stage, I am merely seeking to put him off. I think there is a great deal to be said for the proposal in this Bill. Whether in fact the particular proposal in it is adequate enough or ample to cover all the cases that have arisen, I would not like to say without further examination.

I think I can assure him that, in the Bill which is in contemplation to amend the Act of 1939, this particular matter will be taken care of. There may be other changes affecting domestic workers also necessary. I have had some representations concerning provisions in the Act in their regard, and while I do not want to give the impression that all the representations that have been made to me will be acted on, nevertheless I think they should be all considered together and dealt with together. I do not now consider that in present circumstances there would be any hardship imposed upon any employer of a domestic worker if the changes proposed by this Bill were enacted. I doubt if that case would be made even on behalf of the farming community.

Therefore, the only submission that I wish to make to Senator Duffy and to the Seanad is that it is undesirable to deal with these amendments to the Act by piecemeal legislation. As I am telling him, other amendments are under examination, and both because of the experience which we have had ourselves in relation to the Act and because of the representations made by trade unions, it is desirable to let it stand over for a short time until all these matters can be dealt with together.

Mr. Duffy

There was one point made by the Minister with which I am in thorough agreement, namely, that it is undesirable to enact a basic Act piecemeal. I do not regard this proposal as satisfactory in itself. I would prefer to see a number of other points dealt with as well. The Minister will remember that some of my colleagues introduced an amendment to the Bill a couple of years ago in the Dáil for the purpose of including other groups. I was anxious to cover one case only—the case of the person who is not, in fact, able to protect herself rather than himself. That is a type of person who has not great bargaining power. The Minister knows quite well that there are throughout the country a great number of persons, mainly domestic servants, who have not great bargaining power. They can be imposed upon. I was anxious to cover that type of case only. In view of what the Minister has said, I would not ask the House to pass this Bill. It seems more satisfactory that the matter should be dealt with in a general way rather than bit by bit. Hence, I prefer that we should wait for the comprehensive measure to which the Minister has referred. I would be glad if he could assure us that the amendments to which he refers will be enacted before the Oireachtas is dissolved.

Mr. Lemass

I do not know that I should give that undertaking. There are some amendments which, I think, will present no difficulty—some of the amendments requested by the trade unions—and which can be enacted without any great difficulty. I have, however, received one proposal which would involve a rather fundamental change in the machinery of the measure, and while it may be that the decision will be that we cannot proceed along the particular lines indicated there, I would not like to turn it down without giving it more detailed examination because, on the face of it, it has substantial merits even though its practical execution may present insuperable difficulties. Discussions are proceeding with the trade unions concerned on various aspects of their suggestions. I think we should await the conclusion of these discussions before asking the Oireachtas to make formal decisions on them.

Mr. Duffy

I am satisfied with that.

Motion for Second Reading, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered: That the Bill be withdrawn.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.45 p.m.sine die.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 6 Nov 1947