Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1952

Vol. 41 No. 4

Agricultural Workers (Weekly Half-Holidays) Bill, 1952—Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Mr. McCrea

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 2, line 37, to delete "Wednesday" and substitute "Saturday".

I do so, because Section 4, as we read it, leaves the position very open and indefinite so far as the worker is concerned, and places in the hands of the farmer the right to fix the day on which the worker should have a half-holiday. That is a very extraordinary position because if we are going to have every farmer making his own arrangements to have the half-holiday any day of the week, it will leave a loophole for some unscrupulous farmers to side-track the half-holiday altogether. Although the farmer may refuse to fix the day on which the half-holiday is to be given, it is in the section that Wednesday will be the half-holiday.

I do not know what reason the Minister had for selecting Wednesday as the proper day for the farm worker to take a half-holiday. It may be that in towns in the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency and most other constituencies. Wednesday is the half-holiday under the Shops Act. I do not see any reason for it being a good day for the farmer or the worker to take a half-holiday. Even if they are not working, it still would not be a good day for the worker, because he cannot do shopping, even if the shops are open, as pay night usually falls on Friday, and the farmer himself cannot do very much business either.

I have had experience of negotiations between the farmers and the workers where the half-holiday has been operating for some years, and I also have experience of my own county where, in the southern part, intensive mixed farming is carried on, and in the case of the larger employers—men with 30 or 40 workers—it is their custom to give the men a half-holiday on Saturday. In County Dublin and North Wicklow, too, Saturday is the day on which the worker does his shopping, and the farmer also. I press the Minister to accept this amendment in order to have something definite in the Act as far as the half-holiday is concerned.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Walsh)

I must oppose this amendment. There is no day in the week deemed as being the day on which the half-holiday should be given except where there is no agreement between the employer and the employee to fix the half-holiday. In the Bill the employer has the right to fix the half-holiday; unless it is fixed by mutual agreement, the farmer has the right to fix the day. In the event of his not fixing the day, it has been suggested that it should be Saturday—Saturday was mentioned—but Wednesday is equally suitable.

I am looking at it from the point of view of the farmer who has two or three men in his employment. He cannot afford to stop business on any particular day in the week and he has to stagger the holiday. It is accepted in principle that there is not going to be a fixed day, so if he is to stagger the holiday, he will surely give preference to the married worker over the single man. If the farmer and the married man agree that Saturday be the half-holiday for the latter to enable him to go to town with his wife and buy groceries and so forth, it might be that the farmer has to continue his work on that particular day and consequently has to fix another date for the single men in his employment and he selects Wednesday, which is the middle of the week.

Again, there may be other reasons; it may be a local half-holiday and sports, coursing, racing or anything like that might be on. Generally, as the Senator knows, it is the custom in the country where you have such functions that all work closes down to give everybody an opportunity to attend the sports or racing without any special bargain regarding a half-holiday. There is nothing fixed about the day and, in fact, running through the Bill it is optional, because if there is agreement between the employer and the employee that work goes on, there is no half-day. For that reason, I see no objection to Wednesday.

I could have suggested Monday: possibly there are a lot of agricultural workers who would prefer to have that day as many might be away the previous day or might have attended a dance on the Sunday night. I think that Wednesday is the most suitable day, especially if you look at it from the point of view that it is a rest for the people. It is argued that agricultural workers work for six days of the week and get no rest, while other people get rest on the Saturday, but why not have that rest in the middle of the week? It gives an opportunity for recuperation.

Mr. McCrea

I have pointed out that in every case where there has been agreement between the worker and the employer with regard to the half-holiday it has been fixed on a Saturday. Why not, therefore, have it on a Saturday instead of a Wednesday? Saturday is the obvious day for a half-holiday; all the industrial workers have their half-holiday fixed on a Saturday and, anyhow, Saturday is the shopping day, not Wednesday. Most farmers will allow a married man off, but if the man who is a yardman, a ploughman or a milkman is a single man, the farmer cannot allow him away on Wednesday, if the other man cannot do some of the work being done by that single man. I still think that Saturday was the obvious day to have named.

Professor Hayes

Surely the area covered by the amendment will be very small. No day is named in the Bill for the half-holiday. It is named only in cases, first, where there has been no agreement and, secondly, where the farmer has refused to fix a day himself. According to what I have heard from Senator McCrea, who knows more about it than I do, the day has been fixed in a number of areas. If it is not fixed, the farmer, under the Bill, may fix it, and if he does not, it comes down to a very small number of cases and it is only in these cases that the Bill automatically fixes Wednesday. As a matter of fact, even if we put Saturday in the Bill and the farmer does not like Saturday, he will surely fix Wednesday. You cannot avoid it, but I do not think it is a case for talking about unreasonable or unscrupulous people. It is simply the foolish farmer—I suppose there are no foolish farmers—who will not fix the day himself, under the powers given by the Bill.

Mr. Walsh

I could not accept this amendment. Anybody who has any connection with agriculture knows that Saturday is one of the busiest days on the farm. An idle day follows Saturday and a lot of work has to be carried out on Saturday evening in preparation for the following day. A farmer, consequently, cannot allow his men away on that day. A farm is not like a factory or a workshop where you press a button and everything ceases and then resumes when you press another button.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Government amendment No. 2:

In page 3, line 13, to insert "or if any of those five week-days is a Church holiday and the worker either does not work on that day or completes less than nine hours of work thereon," before "he shall be regarded."

Mr. Walsh

We had a discussion in the other House regarding Church holidays and I agreed to make it possible for the employee to qualify for his half-day by allowing a Church holiday to be regarded as a day on which he had worked. In other words, the hours of that day will count to qualify him for the half-day. That is all that is in it. As the Bill stood, the Church holiday was regarded as an ordinary working day. There are parts of the country where farming operations are carried on as usual on Church holidays and other parts where such a holiday is regarded as a day on which no work is carried on, but in order to permit the employee to qualify for his half-day, in that week, I am asking the Seanad to agree that the nine hours of that day should be regarded as qualifying him for a half-day.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Mr. McCrea

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 3, to add at the end of the section, "if, but only if, the worker has been paid in respect of such Church holiday or public holiday or day's absence from work in that week."

I am sorry that Senator Tunney, whose name is joined with mine as mover of this amendment, is not here to move it. The position is that, in my own diocese of Ferns, a Church holiday is strictly observed. It is observed as a Sunday and no work of any description is carried out.

Mr. Baxter

But a man is paid for the day.

Mr. McCrea

That is the point I want to be clear on. If the man is not paid for that day, he will not be entitled to any half-holiday in that week.

Mr. Walsh

Oh, yes; under the previous amendment.

Mr. McCrea

I was wondering how that amendment would cut across this amendment of mine.

Mr. Walsh

I do not think it does because this is a different amendment, that is, if it is the amendment which we had in the other House. In order to meet that position, I have put in the amendment just passed. A Church holiday counts as a qualifying day for his half-day.

Mr. McCrea

But if the man is not being paid, it is another matter. He is losing a half-day's wages.

Mr. Hawkins

This is not a wage Bill.

Mr. McCrea

It is a Bill to provide a half-holiday for agricultural workers. They can have a 12 months' holiday if they want to and if they do not wish to be paid. As I have said, a Church holiday in Ferns is strictly observed and no manual work of any kind is allowed on that day, so that the worker does not get paid for the holiday and so loses a day's wages. I ask the Minister to look into the matter.

Professor Hayes

Would this amendment be met by amendment No. 3?

Mr. Walsh

I do not think so. All I can say is that this Bill has nothing to do with the payment of wages, whether for a half-day, a Church holiday, a public holiday or any other holiday. It enables an employee to get a half-day and that is all it is concerned with.

Mr. Baxter

Perhaps the Minister could clarify the point made by Senator McCrea?

Mr. Walsh

We had a discussion in the other House on this question of payment for a Church holiday, a public holiday or an annual holiday, if it came within the week, but there was a lot of confused talk about it. As I have said, this Bill has nothing whatever to do with the payment of wages.

Mr. Douglas

What about Sections 11, 12 and 13?

Mr. Walsh

These sections enable the Wages Board to deal with it.

Mr. Douglas

Then the Bill has something to do with it.

Mr. Walsh

It does not do anything directly. When this machine has been built up, we hand it over to the Wages Board to operate it, and they fix these matters of payment.

Mr. Colgan

Would it be correct to say that this Bill is not concerned with whether a man is paid for his half-holiday or not?

Mr. Walsh

Yes. We have nothing to do with that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 7 agreed to.

SECTION 8.

Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Baxter

I realise that what the Minister has just said is a fact, that we are giving authority to the Agricultural Wages Board to fix rates of wages and the hours which men are to work. This section makes provision that, where a worker is prepared to stay at his work, he will get a reward. While we accept what is set out in the Bill with regard to what the duties of the Agricultural Wages Board will be, I should like the Minister to give us his idea of how exactly the section will work. The section reads:—

"(1) Where an agricultural worker instead of taking the half-holiday which he is to be allowed under this Act, either—

(a) remains at work pursuant to an agreement with his employer that during a special period he is to remain at work on the half-holiday, or

(b) otherwise remains at work with his employer's consent,

the employer shall be deemed to have complied with Section 3 of this Act if he pays to the worker for the time so worked the minimum amount or more.

(2) In this section ‘the minimum amount' means an amount calculated at the appropriate minimum rate fixed by the board for the purposes of this section."

I think it would be important to have on the record some information from the Minister of how exactly he considers this thing will work when it becomes law.

Mr. Walsh

Heretofore there was a 54-hour week and that will now be reduced to a 50-hour week, and the wages will be based on a 50-hour rather than a 54-hour week. It is for the Wages Board to fix the rate for a half-day where it is worked, just in the same way as they will fix the rate of wages for a 50-hour week instead of a 54-hour week.

Mr. Baxter

Does the Minister envisage the half-holiday being paid for at double rate or single rate? I do not want to embarrass the Minister by asking questions, but it is my feeling and the feeling of a good many others that we ought to know what is going to happen when legislation such as this is passed. The Wages Board is a subordinate authority to the Minister, and their recommendations must come to him for approval. I would like to know what is in the mind of the Minister with regard to the rate to be paid for a half-holiday, and what it is going to cost the farmer. It is not just enough to pass the baby on to the Wages Board and say that they are going to fix it. I want to know where we are headed in this matter, and that is why I would like to have a clear indication from the Minister as to what rate is to be fixed.

Mr. Walsh

The Wages Board is a statutory body composed of representatives of the agricultural workers and the farmers. It has been operating for about 16 years, and so far as I know it has been giving satisfaction in the country. It is a body of responsible people, and they are going to assess the value of a half-day.

Mr. Baxter

What is the Minister's view on the value of the half-holiday?

Mr. Walsh

The Minister has no control over the board.

Mr. Baxter

Have you not to make an Order implementing any decisions which they make?

Mr. Walsh

No. I am informed of the decisions, but I have not to make an Order.

Mr. Baxter

Their decisions cannot be implemented without the approval of the Minister.

Mr. Walsh

The Minister has not to give his approval to anything in connection with the wages fixed. The board is a statutory body.

Mr. Colgan

This is not something new. I assume that this matter arises in a position where a man works something in excess of the normal, and I am sure that Senator Baxter would agree that where a man works in accordance with an agreement between the farmer and the employee there must be some advantage to the farmer and, surely, the farmer would not be opposed to paying something extra for that facility? It is merely a question of payment being made for extra work done in excess of normal hours.

Mr. McCrea

The question appears to be whether, if a half-holiday is worked, the man should be paid at double rate, and that is what Senator Baxter appears to want the Minister to fix.

Mr. Colgan

I do not think that double time would be fair to the farmers. The trade union regulation is time and a half.

Mr. O'Dwyer

This section is one of great importance to the dairying industry. We believe that in the industry it is not possible to give the half-holiday because the work of milking, etc., must go on. It would be impossible to let a man who is milking have a half-holiday, and the workers in the industry understand that position. They are generally prepared to work the half-holiday. I would like to point out that it would disrupt the whole relations between the employers and the employees if a figure for working a half-holiday was fixed which it would not be possible to pay. If it was fixed at a figure which the farmers could not pay, then it would hit the dairying industry very much.

Mr. Baxter

The point made by Senator O'Dwyer is a very important one. I do not like passing a Bill without trying to visualise what the consequences will be. The farmers are anxious to know what it will cost them and it is not enough to be able to say that the Minister could not tell us. If we did so they would say that he was a queer sort of a Minister. Surely we should have some idea of what this half-holiday is going to cost the farmers of the country. This half-holiday is going to be paid for by somebody.

The Minister has set up a body to study the cost of milk production and I am quite sure that when Senator Colgan or anybody else is presented with his milk bill he will complain about how much it is. It is time that some body was set up to consider what it costs the farmer to produce the food which the people buy. A great many people in this House and elsewhere are inclined to pass over burdens to the farmers without making any effort to find out where the money is coming from. That is so in the case of this half-holiday which is being given to everybody except the farmers, and yet the people who advocated it are those who will shout loudest and get more space in the Press to complain of the increased cost of milk and other foodstuffs.

Senator McCrea is apparently quite prepared to pay double time for a half-holiday when it is worked. I do not know whether the Minister is on the side of the labourers or the farmers, but he was definitely on the side of the labourers in defending them last week. We should have some idea as to what burden this will impose on the farmers, particularly as the section provides that where a man works a half-holiday the farmer shall pay him the minimum amount or more. I think we are not discharging our duty under the Bill by passing on to the Wages Board unlimited authority to determine what this half-holiday is going to cost.

I agree with Senator McCrea that there is no hope for the future of agriculture unless we can get agreement between farmers and their workers. There may be many instances where they are both going to stick to the strict letter of the law and that will be bad for the farmer and it will not be good for the agricultural workers, in the last analysis. It will not do the farmer's business any good either.

I think there is nothing worse than confusion. The feeling I have with regard to this measure is that we are passing something and sending it on to the Agricultural Wages Board, who will try to interpret what ought to have been in the Minister's mind and in the minds of those in the Oireachtas when the Bill was passed. Having taken the responsibility to pilot this Bill through both Houses, the Minister ought to give a direction in regard to what his interpretation would be of the effects of this measure both upon the farmers and the farm labourers.

Mr. Colgan

The Minister is very wise in not putting anything in the Bill except the minimum amount which should be paid. I am satisfied from the little knowledge I possess of the matter, and having regard to the make-up of the Agricultural Wages Board, that justice will be done both to the farmers and the farm labourers. If this body were composed exclusively of farmers or of farm labourers there would be some justification for the fears expressed by Senator Baxter, but this is a joint board. I am sure that the farmers on the board will look after the farmers' interests, just as the agricultural labourers on their side will look after their own interests. No matter what we will have to pay for all these problems subsequently we ought to get away from the position we had in this country where the agricultural worker, who was one of the most important members of our community, was the most depressed worker.

Mr. Walsh

I can see Senator Baxter's point of view and I can understand his anxiety to have a statement made here, but it is not my function to make a statement or to dictate to the Agricultural Wages Board. They are charged with the responsibility of fixing not merely a daily or a weekly wage, but also a rate for overtime. I take it that the half-holiday will be a matter which will engage their attention. Being a statutory body composed of farmers and farm workers, they will find a solution themselves without any difficulty. Why should I try to dictate to that body what or what not should be the wage? I do not believe it is within my province to do it. Consequently, I am not going to tell this House what the Agricultural Wages Board should say should be the rate for the half-holiday.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Mr. Baxter

I move amendment No. 4:

In sub-section (2) (a) (i), line 16, to delete "twenty-four" and substitute "twelve."

I have put down a series of amendments all meaning the same thing. If the House accepts one, it must accept the three. Suppose a worker leaves my employment, there is a belief that I have contravened Section 3 in that I have not given him his half-holiday, which he should get under the law. The worker is given two years within which to take legal proceedings.

I am suggesting in my amendments that that period should be reduced to one year. I am doing that for the sake of peace and order. If a man leaves my employment he knows, when he is leaving, whether he has a grievance or not and whether he has enjoyed his rights under the law or not. If he does not know that when he leaves he will not be long gone until he discovers it. If he does not discover it and does not take action inside, say, 12 months and he is given 24 months within which to take action, I suggest that the action taken probably would never have been taken, but that it was inspired by motives other than the feeling that an injustice was done to him and that he did not get his rights under the law.

I know that there have been prosecutions in the past under the Wages Act. I have read decisions of courts which were positively appalling. I have knowledge of a case where the relative of a small farmer, somebody not terribly efficient or acute in mind, left his employer and took an action. The poor man was almost put out of his home. The employee had been with him for years and he had been paid the statutory wages. The employee took an action and the small farmer was decreed. That was a disastrous occurrence for him.

If an agricultural labourer does not get his rights under the Half-Holidays Act, I suggest that he will know that within a year. This period of two years should not be something hanging over the heads of the agricultural labourer or the farmer. I do not think there is any necessity for two years. I do not know what is the purpose of giving a man two years to discover whether he had any rights or not. If an injustice has been done, the sooner it is brought to a head the better for both the farmer and the worker. It is up to the farm labourer to look out for his rights. He does not want much tuition on that point to-day. He is quite capable of determining what he is entitled to enjoy.

These amendments are reasonable. What is the point of having the feeling that he has two years within which to take action? It will be very sad if he has to take action; it will be very bad for him as a labourer and it will not be good for the farmer.

As far as the labourer is concerned, everybody will shoo him away as a difficult man and other people will be very casual about employing him at all. I suggest that my three amendments should be accepted and that the 24 months should be reduced to 12 months. I should like somebody to tell me why it is necessary to have a period as long as 12 months. Under other legislation a statutory period is fixed within which action can be taken in relation to legitimate debts. If that is quoted to me I can answer: "Well, why not make the period five or six months as it is under other legislation?" That has not been done. The 12 months' period is quite long enough and there ought to be agreement to accept that.

Mr. Walsh

There are reasons why a period of two years is specified. That provision is already enshrined in the 1945 and the 1950 Acts and we would create an anomalous position if we were to put 12 months into this Bill. As the provision of two years is good enough for the 1945 and the 1950 Acts and does not create any great dissatisfaction between employer and employee, I do not see why there should be any difference of opinion regarding the provision in this Bill. They will all be operated by the one body, the Agricultural Wages Board. I want to give them two years in this case.

In case the Senator is labouring under a misapprehension regarding this Bill I want to tell him that this Bill will not come into operation until I fix the date and there will not be retrospective penalties, if that is what is in the Senator's mind.

Mr. Baxter

That is not in my mind.

Mr. Walsh

It come into operation only when I fix a date. As regards the other question, if an employee is taking action he possibly will take it inside 12 months. There may be very little reason for having it more than 12 months or for having it two years or any fixed time but, as it is already there and it would mean amending the other Acts——

Mr. Baxter

Why?

Mr. Walsh

——I do not see what reason there is to amend this section. If the provision is workable under the other Acts I take it will be workable under this Bill. There is no difference. I do not think the Senator should press the amendment. It does not make any material difference whether the provision is for 12 or 24 months. If a man is going to take action, he will have taken it inside three months.

Mr. Baxter

I do not think that, because there is a provision for 24 months in the wages legislation, it is obligatory to have 24 months in this case. I do not accept that. The issue as to whether a man was paid the statutory wage or not is a bigger issue than whether he got fair treatment under the Half-Holidays Bill or not. In the former case the opportunity ought to be open to him for a longer time to test his right. I do not think that that period is necessary in this case.

I feel that it is possible to provoke men under this section to bring their employers into court out of cussedness. A man may have left an employer. He may be a disagreeable sort of person. He may egg on a former employee, because he has a long time in which to do it, to take legal action, where the merits of the case are doubtful. I feel that this provision should not be in the Bill in this form when one knows the sort of thing that can happen, the nasty unpleasantness that arises, not very frequently, but which can arise. In such a case hardship may be created. I want to impress on the Minister that it is important, if a man has a grievance, if he does not discover it within 12 months that he ought not to discover it at all. It ought to be obligatory on him, if he is taking action, to take it within 12 months, and he ought not to take it at the instance of some person but should take it out of his own sense of justice. I feel that a section like this can be used in the way I have just explained. I would press the Minister to accept the amendment. I do not see that there is any difficulty. He has to go back to the Dáil with his own amendments.

Mr. Walsh

For the purpose of having uniformity, I am standing by the provision of two years. The Senator mentioned that on the expiry of two years the employee is not entitled to come back. I claim that if the law has been contravened on any occasion, that he is entitled to come back. Why should I protect somebody who has contravened the law, even if it were two and a half years afterwards? I have inserted the provision of two years to give him an opportunity. The employee is legitimately entitled to his half-day, and why should I do something that would make it impossible for him to get it? I shall not put that into the Bill. Apart altogether from the question of uniformity with the 1945 and the 1950 Acts, there is the question that if the law has been contravened the employee is entitled to take action. That is a matter of ethics.

Professor Hayes

Will the Minister explain the point about uniformity?

Mr. Walsh

We have already in the 1945 Wages Act and in the 1950 Holidays Act a provision of two years, and we are putting that provision into this Bill also. It is already being worked by the Agricultural Wages Board in respect of the other Acts.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.

Sections 10 to 18, inclusive, and the Title, agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.

Bill, as amended, reported, received for final consideration, and passed.