Vol. 44 No. 16
I move:—
That the Insurance (Intermittent Unemployment) (Extension) Order, 1955, made by the Minister for Social Welfare, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, and laid before Seanad Eireann on the 10th day of May, 1955, pursuant to sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Insurance (Intermittent Unemployment) Act, 1942 (No. 7 of 1942), be confirmed.
Under this Order the scheme of insurance provided in the Act of 1942 against loss of wages due to stoppages caused by the weather is now extended to manual workers in civil engineering and the branches of the painting trade not included in the building trade. Up to the present, this scheme has been confined to the building trade.
The building and civil engineering trades overlap to a considerable extent. Civil engineering contracts often include work which comes within the definition of "employment in the building trade" already covered by the Act but many firms, the bulk of whose work is in the building trade, also carry out engineering contracts. Workers frequently change from one industry to another. Those who have had long spells of employment in the building industry during which they paid contributions into the fund feel aggrieved when they are debarred from receipt of benefit during spells of employment in the civil engineering industry.
Experience of the operation of the Act has also shown that some work carried out by painting contractors, for example the painting of bridges and public lighting standards, does not come within the definition of employment in the building trade and there has been constant pressure to have the benefits of the Act extended to all work of a kind commonly done outside the building trade.
Representatives of both workers and employers in the trades concerned have been in close consultation with my Department in regard to these extensions and I am happy to be in a position to say that the Order reflects their agreement. The Order will come into operation on the last Monday of the present month and I now submit it for formal confirmation.
Men working for contractors on sewerage schemes have not so far been entitled to "wet time". Do they come under this Order now?
Yes.
People employed on every scheme?
Water schemes and sewerage schemes?
Yes. That comes under the head of civil engineering, that is, provided that they are not employed directly by a local authority.
Employed by a contractor?
Employed by a contractor, yes.
We welcome the extension of this benefit to this type of trade, but there are one or two questions on which we should like to have some more information. One of these matters has been raised already in relation to persons employed by local authorities. I understand many local authorities have a scheme of their own in operation which is more efficient than this scheme. I am not quite satisfied that this scheme makes provision for all the types of persons who suffer in their employment as a result of weather conditions.
The second question is what demand the extension of this scheme will make on the insurance fund and what provision is being made to meet this demand or any further demands that may arise as a result of the extension. We all appreciate the benefits of the scheme, but we would like to see these schemes in such a position as to be capable of meeting whatever demands might be made on them. Apart from that matter, there is this question of persons employed by State boards, such as forestry workers and others. I am not quite satisfied that they come within the scope of the benefits of this scheme. If not, are their positions any worse as a result of not coming under this scheme?
I should like to ask the Minister how painters employed by the week are affected, because I have not heard of any of them who have been penalised as a result of wet-time? For instance, a painter employed in painting a house may go indoors if there is rain. If the weather is fine, he paints out of doors. Would the person employing him have to affix this type of stamp? I think the Minister should look into the matter. I know that, in my town, there is great difficulty in getting painters. Instead of having short-time, wet-time, or any sort of broken-time, as far as I can see, they are working continuous overtime. I looked for a painter recently, and he said he might be able to come in two months' time. Different conditions operate in schemes, where there is a good deal of outside work and where there is broken-time. Persons working in some schemes have no broken-time, and others lost days through the condition of the weather. I know the virtues of this legislation. It was brought in to protect people in building schemes, and rightly so, but there ought to be some way of meeting the case I mentioned.
In regard to the point raised by Senator Burke, I do not think we could run a scheme of this kind at all if we were to make special exemption of the case he puts, because, if we are to have an insurance scheme at all in vogue, all workers of the kind specified in this Order will have to be embraced. It may be that the painter Senator Burke had in mind can duck in and out of the weather, and he may have a particular employer in mind. I do not think that the majority of employers would tolerate a man, who is engaged in painting, ducking inside, sitting down, and at the same time paying him for that. Therefore, I think it is necessary to have this scheme, and, to put it on a proper financial basis, all workers in the building trade and all workers in the civil engineering trade will have to be included, so as to set up a fund which will provide compensation for workers who find themselves unemployed in inclement or wet weather.
It is true, as Senator Hawkins said, that forestry workers are not included. This is not intended to be the ideal type of wet-time insurance scheme. It is important, inasmuch as it is extended to workers heretofore not included. This extension has been agreed to by the employers' representatives in the building and civil engineering trades and by the trade union representatives. They themselves agree that, for the present, it would not be right to include employees of local authorities, forestry workers, or those employed by Bord na Móna, those employed by, say, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, or those employed on public relief schemes, because I think, on examination, it will be found that practically all of that type of workers are protected to some extent by their employers.
As a matter of fact, in the case of county council workers, in particular, and in respect of road workers, there is a scheme of compensation for wet time which, I think, is much more advantageous to them than this State scheme we have here. This scheme was suggested by the Minister for Local Government, I think, in 1950, and has been adopted, I believe, by every single county council, except three. We trust that those three councils will adopt the scheme which was suggested by the Minister for Local Government. There is also a scheme for road workers whereby they are paid for part of a day, and once they are paid for this wet time, they do not have to make any contribution. Bord na Móna also has its own scheme, as has the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. They would readily agree that the scheme under which they operate would be much more advantageous even than one to which they had to contribute.
I think Senator Hawkins also asked about the ability of the funds to carry this extension. I think I am safe in saying—I am absolutely certain in saying—that the fund can well bear the extension. Needless to say, the bad weather which we experienced last winter, and the strike in the building trade, meant that the resources of the fund were very strained. But, as the general building programme is now in full operation, I am confident that the fund will be built up again to such an extent that we shall be able to build up a fairly respectable reserve to provide for any other extensions that may be deemed necessary in the future.
