Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Jul 1955

Vol. 45 No. 5

Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill, 1954—Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Crotty)

The purpose of this Bill is clearly indicated in the Long Title, from which Senators will see that it is merely to extend to persons employed by local authorities Part VI of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946.

The Industrial Relations Act, 1946, which set up the Labour Court has been in operation for nearly nine years and I think it cannot be disputed that the Bill has achieved a substantial measure of success. The Labour Court with its associated facilities for conciliation has undoubtedly avoided the eruption of industrial disputes which could only have resulted in economic distress both for the people immediately concerned and for the community generally. It is against this background of achievement that the present Bill has been conceived.

It is the declared policy of the Government to provide for employees of local authorities a scheme of conciliation and arbitration. Senators will recall that schemes of conciliation and arbitration are already in existence for civil servants and primary and secondary school teachers. The Minister for Education recently announced an extension of this latter scheme to embrace vocational teachers; and the Minister for Local Government recently received a deputation from the Local Government Officials' Union, who sought the establishment of arbitration machinery and to whom he indicated that he would give earnest consideration to their proposals in consultation with the other Ministers involved.

The House will recall the long discussions which took place during the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946. It was generally accepted at the time that the measure was in the nature of an experiment. Various categories of workers were specifically excluded by the provisions of the 1946 Act from access to the Labour Court or to its conciliation machinery. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has always felt very strongly that the employees who were generally classed as servants of various local bodies should not be denied access to the Labour Court. He had hoped originally that in widening the scope of the Industrial Relations Act it would not have been necessary to make any distinction between officers and servants of local authorities but after full consultation with his colleagues in the Government whose Departments are concerned in the conditions of employment of local authority officers, he has come to the conclusion that there are too many practical difficulties in the way of including in the Bill the classes generally described as officers.

In this connection, it should, perhaps, be mentioned that an association which claims to represent 80 per cent. of the officers employed by local authorities coming under the jurisdiction of the Department of Local Government, represented to the Ministers for Local Government and Industry and Commerce that they wished to have excluded from this amending Bill the officers represented by the association. In so far as officers in general are concerned, there is a regular hierarchy of authorities who in one degree or another have a say, but not an exclusive say, in the conditions of employment of the officers. Because of this we get far away from the simple direct relationship of employer and employee and it does seem that some type of machinery other than that envisaged in the 1946 Act would be better suited and more appropriate for investigating the claims of officers as a class in regard to their conditions of employment. It is recognised, of course, that there may be exceptions to that general rule and the Bill makes provisions accordingly.

It will be seen from Section 2 of the Bill that Part VI of the 1946 Act, which deals with the investigation of trade disputes by the Labour Court itself, or through its conciliation conferences, is being extended to include the servants of local authorities, vocational education committees and committees of agriculture. The term "local authority" includes corporations and county councils, port sanitary authorities and the various committees, joint committees or boards which have been established by any of the county councils or corporations. The biggest single class to benefit by this extension will be some 30,000 county council road workers. Other types of workers who would be embraced by the term "servant" would be—water-keepers, scavengers, messengers, porters, caretakers, cleaners and forestry workers, where these are employed by committees of agriculture, as in the Counties of Kildare and Donegal.

Before considering the last three categories of workers mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Bill, perhaps I should invite attention to sub-section (2) of Section 2, which provides that the Government may, by Order, extend the meaning of "worker" in Part VI of the 1946 Act to include any specified class of officer of a local authority. Many classes of workers are designated officers although it would appear that their duties are not substantially different from those of other employees classed as servants. We have provided in this sub-section the necessary machinery to enable us to deal with any anomalies arising out of this situation.

It was anticipated that, as soon as the Bill was enacted, a case would be made to include within it health inspectors, nurses employed by a mental hospital authority and certain officers of public assistance authorities. As an alternative and to avoid the necessity for the making of a separate Government Order in respect of these classes, the Government gave authority to include them immediately in the Bill, even though these three groups of employees are classed as officers and not as servants.

This Bill sets out to provide for certain classes of workers the right of access to the Labour Court for the settlement of disputes arising out of their employment. Whether or not they avail of that right is a matter entirely for themselves; they cannot be compelled to do so.

I feel confident that Senators will have no hesitation in supporting this measure.

Mr. Hawkins

I welcome any proposals that would remove from the controversy of the local authority the very vexed question of demands for increases in wages that have often led to difficulties on our local bodies, but I am very doubtful as to whether the proposal before us to-day is the best approach to this question. Just a short few weeks ago we passed through this House the City and County Management (Amendment) Bill. One of the proposals in that Bill which was stressed very much as giving back some additional power to the local authority was the right of fixing remuneration for their employees.

The Minister for Local Government piloted that Bill through this and the other House and drew the attention of members to this important section. He pointed out that it was one which would be welcomed particularly by the local authorities and their employees. Although the Parliamentary Secretary referred to road workers to-day he also pointed out that the Government were taking power to extend access to the Labour Court to practically every section of local employees who wished to avail of it.

That being the case, we should, I think, consider the purpose for which the Labour Court was first established. Nobody in this or the other House at the time the Bill proposing to set up the Labour Court was before us had any idea that the court would be asked to consider questions in relation to the remuneration of local employees. The court was set up and the personnel chosen because of their experience in the field of trade unionism or because they were representatives of the employers' association.

I do not know if any member of the Labour Court, as at present constituted, has ever been a member of a local authority or has any intimate knowledge of local authority work. They have been chosen because of their knowledge and experience of trade unionism on the one side and as representatives of the employers on the other. That is as it should be, but we are now bringing in a very wide field, one in which there is great interest.

There are a few questions I would like to ask the Minister to answer so as to clarify the position before we pass the Bill. The first is—is it proposed to supplement the membership of the court by adding some person or persons who may have an intimate knowledge of the work of local authorities? I think that would be very essential. The second is—will the employers have an opportunity of having their representatives present to give advice before a decision is reached? In the case of the employees of a local authority those most concerned, but those who cannot to my mind be represented at a hearing, are the ratepayers and the persons representing them on the local authority are their elected representatives.

We must ask ourselves at least three questions in connection with this. The first is—when the application is made to the Labour Court who is going to represent the employers, the local authorities? It is the county manager or two or three members of the local authority? I can well imagine that a ratepayers' organisation which has no representation on that particular local authority or one individual ratepayer who might be interested in the matter may feel that the demands made are not justified and that they wish as ratepayers to be in a position to make the case of the ratepayers before the court makes a decision.

There is no use in saying these matters will be decided by the local authority because the appeal to the Labour Court is, one might say, the last step before a strike. The application I imagine would have been made to the local authority to grant the workers' demands; the local authority would have considered it and made a decision. That decision, prior to the passing of the County Management (Amendment) Act, was a decision that the county manager would make. Now we have passed on that to the local authority and it is the local authority which will have made a decision either to accept or reject the demand. If they accept there will be no appeal, but if they reject, it is against that decision the workers will now have the right to appeal. Who is going to put the local authority's case before the court? It is important that somebody should have that right and if you open the doors of this court to such a wide range of people as local authority employees you must also make provision for the individual ratepayer and ratepayers' organisations if they wish to be represented.

Having made a recommendation, that recommendation will come before the local authority and I would welcome some form of organisation to deal with that. I am not satisfied this is the best way to do it. The Labour Court has been very successful up to this, avoiding quite a number of trade disputes, and its recommendations have been received in the spirit in which they have been made but there is grave danger that in passing this Bill we are going to bring this body into open discussion by every local authority. When the recommendations come back to the local authority—and all the Labour Court can do is to make a recommendation—we will have one side or another criticising a Labour Court decision, pointing out that it was not justified in one way or another. That is another reason I would advance against the proposals in this Bill.

In bringing this Bill to the House the Minister did not seem to feel very confident himself that it was the best approach and he suggested: "Well, it is the best we can do at the moment; we will see how it will work out for a year or two, and if it is not successful we can see what we can do. I think that is a bad approach. I think the Minister must make his mind up that this is the best that can be done and that all Parties must make the best they can of it. If it is to be just an experiment, and if, having dragged the Labour Court into discussion at every local authority meeting, somebody then has to come along in a year or two and say: "This thing has not been as successful as we wished it to be: we must now set up some new organisation", serious damage will have been done to the prestige of the Labour Court.

I do not think there is any great demand for this Bill by employees of local authorities. Only in very few cases have local authority employees had to resort to strike action. Members of local authorities usually include representatives of organised labour and all the representatives, no matter to what Party they belong, live in the area and understand the workers' conditions. On the whole they have been sympathetic to any demands made by the workers regarding remuneration or conditions. Local authorities are not bad employers.

Another question will arise. In making its decision at present in relation to any dispute that comes before it the Labour Court can make a recommendation that will apply to that particular industry whatever it may be, and if a recommendation is made that such-and-such a section of workers should receive an increase in remuneration or certain conditions these conditions apply to that type of employee throughout the country or throughout the area for which the application was made.

The position is different in regard to local authorities. Is the Labour Court, in making a recommendation for increased remuneration or particular conditions of employment, going to make that recommendation apply to every local authority if the court suggests that it should apply, say, to the workers of Cork County Council or Corporation? Is the same scale of wages and conditions to be applied to local authority workers in some of the poor counties like Leitrim? We have had these difficulties with local authorities where those who advocate increases in remuneration and better conditions always point out the better off county and say: "Workers in such and such a county have received these increases for so long, their conditions are so and so and there is no reason why this county should not come up to the same standard."

There is a number of difficulties in relation to conditions of employment and wages. I want it to be clearly understood that I am not pointing out the difficulties because of any antagonism to the workers. It is rather the other way round and I would like to see some organisation, perhaps a separate organisation, with representatives of persons who have a knowledge of the working of local authorities and representatives of the workers' organisations. The road workers have organisations of their own, as have the nurses and all the other classes of employees; of course the clerical workers of the local authorities, who have an organisation of their own, have asked to be excluded because they have other means of putting their case for increased remuneration or better conditions before the Department.

There is still another difficulty in this matter. When the Labour Court makes a recommendation for improved conditions to any other section of workers it is only a matter for the employer to consider whether he is in a position or whether he is prepared to give it or not. Usually, he passes that on to the consumer, and the local authority can pass it on to the ratepayer. That is all very fine, but no increase can be made by the local authority. Even though we did provide that they would have a say in the County Management Bill, the final act must rest with the Minister for Local Government and his Department. He must either sanction or refuse to sanction the recommendations after the local authority have accepted the recommendations of the Labour Court. Then they have to go a step further to the Minister who must make the final decision. Therefore, there is no analogy between the relationship of the worker and the employer on the one hand, where their cases have gone and will go to the Labour Court, and, on the other hand, the employees and the local authority.

Although I welcome any proposal for setting up machinery to deal with this question, I have grave doubts that this is the best means of dealing with it and still graver doubts because of the Minister's own suggestion that he was not satisfied, that we could take it for 12 months and after 12 months or two years we could reconsider the whole question. I suggest that a great deal of damage will be done to the prestige of the Labour Court and to the likelihood of its recommendations being accepted by the workers. We should be satisfied that this is the best court and this is the best organisation we can find to deal with this matter and that there will be no such suggestion as: "We will try this and if it fails we will try something else." We should make up our minds that this is the best approach but if we are not satisfied let us hold our hand for the time being, reconsider the whole question and see if we can find some other form of organisation that will have a better chance of working, because of the knowledge and experience of the persons representing local authorities on the one side and employees of the local authority on the other.

Mr. McGuire

At first sight, this Bill would seem to be a desirable thing in giving these new persons an approach to the Labour Court and access to its conciliation machinery. I must say, however, having listened to Senator Hawkins's remarks, that he did put his finger on some difficulties that will have to be considered. First of all, he challenged the competence of the court. Was it competent to hear this particular type of case? As this organisation was set up to deal with industrial relations as between employers and employees and even in connection with State industries, I do not think his objections to the competence of the court really hold water. He suggested that it would be necessary to have somebody on the court, on the employer's side, who would be familiar with the work of the county councils and their method of dealing with their employees. I do not think that objection is valid because the fact is that a county council is an employer like anybody else and the principles of industrial relations apply no matter who the employer is, whether it is the State, a county council, a corporation or an individual. If you pushed that to its logical conclusion you would find that every industry would be making out that the court would want to have employers in their particular industry sitting as members.

Senator Hawkins put the question as to whether this was the best course to take in dealing with the problem. I do not see what alternative there is to this. What is being done in this Bill is to give these workers an extension of the opportunities to which they can resort in the future to establish their claims for better wages and conditions of employment. I think I am right in saying that Senator Hawkins has not given any alternative. In fact, there is no alternative. I think the Labour Court is the only vehicle that can be used for this purpose.

I agree with Senator Hawkins when he mentioned the many difficulties that arise when the Labour Court does adjudicate on these particular cases we have envisaged in this Bill. The idea of the Labour Court is a very good one but unfortunately it is not being used at present in the spirit in which it was set up. I am sorry to say that it is very often abused and, where it is used, it is used merely for the purpose of raising the ante. At the moment there appears to be what almost approximates to a campaign on the part of organised labour to avoid the Labour Court. We had an example of that yesterday. I think that is a pity.

The position seems to be now that where employees think they will do well by taking their dispute to the Labour Court, they go to the Labour Court; but, where they feel they have not a very good case, they refuse to go to the Labour Court. They prefer to fight their case by strike action. It was to avoid strike action the Labour Court was originally set up; but very often now unjust claims are pushed, claims which are ultimately hurtful to the workers themselves, by strike action and the Labour Court is ignored. I think that is a pity and I am afraid that the same abuses will arise in the future.

Senator Hawkins also put his finger on another point. He referred to the fact that where the Labour Court adjudicates in a particular case it may set a high rate of wages and conditions of employment based on the richest industry or the richest employer involved, or, as in this particular instance, the richest county council. All others involved in that dispute, irrespective of whether or not they are in a position to do so, will be made to follow suit. That is the pattern at the moment. Where the Labour Court is availed of, the findings of that court are made to apply to everybody concerned irrespective of ability to pay. I think that is a fault in the present machinery though, on the whole, I think the idea of going before the Labour Court is a good one provided the machinery is used in the way in which it was intended it should be used when it was originally established.

It is desirable that there should be some sort of final court in industrial relations, the findings of which would be binding and to which the two partners in industry could go, prepared to abide by the findings of that court. Unfortunately, that does not happen at the moment and it is only possible in the field of industrial relations to achieve peace and harmony through the goodwill of both sides. That has been pointed out again and again. Recently a rail strike paralysed England. It was felt by many people there that the time had come when the Government should take some steps to avoid these upsets to industry: but Sir Walter Monckton had to admit that there was no court one could set up which could force decisions on workers because of the magnitude of the workers' organisations. If the workers will not abide by a decision, then nobody can force that decision upon them since one is dealing with thousands of people and one cannot fine them all. The success or failure, therefore, of negotiating machinery in industrial relations is dependent upon the goodwill as between the participants.

Despite all the objections put forward by Senator Hawkins to this proposal, I cannot see any better one. With all its faults, I think it represents the best that can be done. The only thing which will make this machinery work satisfactorily will be the adoption of a responsible attitude on the part of the councils, which are the employers, and on the part of the workers, who will probably be represented by trade unions. Senator Hawkins asked who would put the council's case. One might as well ask who would put Messrs. Guinness's case. Guinness is not constituted of one man only, and in the event of an industrial dispute Messrs. Guinness would appoint an expert to act for them just as they would appoint counsel to act for them in a lawsuit.

Mr. Murphy

It is important in this matter that we should deal with the principles enshrined in this Bill and not allow ourselves to be drawn into an unhelpful discussion of the Labour Court and the present difficulties that exist in the matter of industrial relations. I do not think any question arises here as to the success or failure of the Labour Court and I do not think a discussion along those lines can help anybody at the present time. Indeed, I think such a discussion should be avoided.

In regard to the Bill itself, I would say without qualification that it is a very welcome one. I could never understand why the Labour Court, which was established to maintain peace in industrial relations as far as possible, should not have its doors thrown open to the employees of local authorities merely because those employees happened to be working for local authorities and not for private employers. It is quite true that the question of fixing wages and conditions of service for workers or servants of local authorities is full of complications. I agree with Senator Hawkins in that. Does it make the position less complicated to, debar such workers or servants from going to the Labour Court? I do not think it does. I think the Labour Court should be available to them. I think it is wrong that trade unions representing local employees should be debarred from making a case to the Labour Court simply because they represent local employees.

This extension of the duties and work of the Labour Court raises the question as to whether there should be an extension of personnel on that body. That is a matter which deserves examination. I understand the T.U.C. has already made representations to the Minister in that matter. Obviously there is need for an extension of the personnel, need for having people with knowledge and experience of local authorities represented on the Labour Court so that that court will be in a position to deal adequately with the duties placed upon it.

In a discussion on another Bill I mentioned the question of negotiating machinery for officers of local authorities and I was very pleased to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say that the question of setting up separate internal machinery for these people was under examination. I pointed out then that, while the Labour Court was excellent in principle, it was recognised that the setting up of internal machinery was most desirable. Where there is a union anxious to set up such machinery and willing to accept its responsibilities in that matter, the Government should do everything possible to facilitate the setting up of such machinery. I pointed out that there was in operation in England and Wales a joint council in the case of officers of local authorities. I can see no reason why we should not establish a similar council here provided the union is willing and anxious to have that type of machinery.

The problem relating to the servants of local authorities, particularly the 30,000 odd road workers, is somewhat different and I think it is very welcome to have the machinery of the Labour Court thrown open to the representatives of these people. I hope they will avail of the Labour Court and that that court will be able satisfactorily to deal with the problems which will confront it in the new duties placed upon it by this measure.

Mr. Cogan

While there is not very much objection to this Bill, even the Parliamentary Secretary will admit that neither he nor anyone else who has spoken in favour of it has made a strong or convincing case. It is not true to say, as has been said, that local authorities are in exactly the same position as other employers. In the main, the ordinary employer is a person who is carrying on a business or industry and who is endeavouring to make a profit or, at least to avoid a loss through the management of the business. An elected local authority is in an entirely different position. It is a body which may be said to hold a balance, so to speak, between its employees and those who benefit by its expenditure and those who provide the money. It is a difficult rôle, as we all know, and a complex one, as members of local authorities well know.

The position of the private employer is altogether different. He can come into court and say: "I would like to meet the claims that are being made but, if I do, my business will show a loss and I will be unable to carry on and continue to give employment." He may make that case. The local authority, on the other hand, can always be told that if a claim has to be met, it can be met by an increased demand upon the ratepayers and that revenue can always be increased to meet expenditure. There is that vital difference between a local authority and a private employer.

If we accept the principle that employees of local authorities should be encouraged to put their claims before the Labour Court, is it not equally true that employees of the State should also have the right to go before the Labour Court, that is to say, that members of the Defence Forces, members of the Garda, post office employees and all the innumerable people, civil servants, should have the right to bring their case to the Labour Court if the Labour Court is of such benefit?

However, because of the special difficulties of the position, there has been set up a special arbitration procedure for dealing with civil servants' claims and that would seem to indicate that a similar procedure should operate in regard to employees of local authorities. Local authorities are part and parcel of the State. They are public bodies, elected by the people, giving employment, maintaining social services.

I should like, Sir, to call your attention to the fact that, when Senators on this side of the House are speaking, Senator Hayes usually starts a very animated conversation and it is very difficult for anybody to concentrate.

Professor Hayes

I apologise to the Senator. I have noticed that he is very capable of concentrating for long periods. I am sorry.

Mr. Cogan

I accept that apology. I was suggesting that, since it has been found necesary and desirable to set up a special tribunal to deal with the claims of servants and employees of the State, it should be equally desirable to apply the same or similar machinery to employees of local authorities, because civil servants and local employees are more or less on an equal footing; they are both employees of an elected public authority, they are both employees of the elected representatives of the people and, therefore, in all fairness, similar provision should be made for them.

The ordinary representative of the employers is not competent to deal with the kind of problems that will come before the Labour Court if employees of local authorities make their claims there.

There is in this Bill what I consider a bad principle, that is, the making of a distinction between what might be described as the officers and the noncommissioned officers of the local authorities, the distinction that is made between officers of local authorities and servants of the local authorities. Why that distinction should be made, I do not know. It is undesirable and will lead to complications.

There is provision in the Bill to bring in, at the Minister's discretion, by Order, a certain number of officers of local authorities. There, again, there will be a good deal of influence exerted as to what particular types are to be brought in and what particular types are to be left out. If you go on and extend the principle until you bring all officers of local authorities under the Labour Court the question will arise, why should not the Labour Court operate in regard to employees and permanent officials of the State?

I think the Government have been rather hasty in the introduction of this Bill or, at least, they have not given the matter full consideration. It should have been possible to set up, if necessary, a special tribunal to deal with the type of problem that arises out of local government employment. It must be remembered that local government employment is of a very varied nature. There are permanent employees, both officers and servants, under local authorities. It must be remembered, also, that there is a vast body of road workers. I think the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned a figure of 30,000. An extraordinary problem arises in regard to those because, in giving employment to road workers, a county council is not always actuated by the consideration of getting the roads maintained or made but sometimes is actuated by the consideration of providing a kind of social service for the relief of unemployment.

I came up against this problem in a very vital way recently. When I consulted with a local engineer in regard to methods of roadmaking, he told me that, by the introduction of modern methods, mechanised methods of roadmaking it would be possible to reduce the number of men employed by the county council to less than one-fourth. One can imagine what that would mean in the distress it might cause amongst a large number of people who depend for their living on such employment. It will be seen, therefore, that it is not really the same position as an employer who employs men in order to carry on his business. Sometimes he may be actuated by generosity in perhaps keeping on some men who have given long service and whom he could dispense with if he wished but, in the main, the number of men he employs represents the number necessary to carry on his business.

Local authorities must always be actuated by consideration for the problem of unemployment. Where there is widespread unemployment they must seek to provide employment as far as they can even though they could get a better job done with a much smaller staff. It is extraordinary that with the modern technique of a pre-mixed tarmacadam surface you can provide a much better road with the minimum number of employees. Nevertheless, local authorities feel that somehow or another they have an obligation to relieve as far as it lies in their power the problem of unemployment. In this way they are not employers but, if you like, the providers of a public social service for the relief of distress. To compare their position with that of the ordinary employer is altogether wrong. In my view, the Minister would be well advised to reconsider this matter and, though this Bill may go through this House and become enacted, he should, before it has time to do harm—as Senator Hawkins has suggested it may—get a better type of machinery into operation at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Tierney

I welcome this Bill which I think is long overdue. Speaking from experience of county council work, I can say that this Bill will help to put road men on a more satisfactory basis. I come from Tipperary and in that area we find men doing the same work, often on the same road, but with a vast difference in their wages. Where North and South Tipperary are concerned, we have found that there is a difference of as much as 10/- a week in the rates of wages paid in those two areas for the same work. There is a bridge at Portumna and half of that bridge lies in Senator Hawkins's area and the other half lies in our area. When work was being done on that bridge there was a difference of 12/6 in the wages paid to workers, for the same work, according to which area they were working in. If a board or some committee were set up to standardise the rate of wages paid to road workers it would help to put Party politics out of road men's wages. That has actually been the position down through the years. In order to get the better of another Party, one Party will come along and propose a certain increase in wages. It is easy to visualise what that type of thing can lead to. The result is that the road men of this country have been the cockshot of all Parties.

In my view, this Bill is a workers' Bill. I am sure that whoever will be on this board will be straight and honest. I presume there will be somebody to represent the local authorities and somebody from the Federation of Rural Workers or Irish Transport to represent the workers. That will mean that, if we cannot have a standard rate of wages for road workers all over the 29 county councils in Ireland, the matter can at least be put on a new and more satisfactory basis. I feel that this Bill is a welcome addition to our industrial legislation.

Mr. Crotty

I am very pleased with the reception this Bill has got in the Seanad. It has been welcomed by practically every speaker. On behalf of the Opposition, Senator Hawkins welcomed it with some reserve: I am sure that is only what we could expect as he could hardly welcome it in full. However, he welcomed it with some reservations. He asked some questions and made some points. The first question he asked was whether the personnel of the Labour Court could be supplemented. He said he felt that they were appointed originally to deal with industrial disputes and that, therefore, the members might not have experience of dealing with employees of local authorities. The personnel can be extended. If it is found necessary to bring somebody else on to the Labour Court that can be done.

When the original Industrial Relations Bill was going through the Oireachtas—I was not in the Dáil at the time—people were wondering, as they are to-day, in connection with extending this to local authorities, what effect it would have. The effect which the Labour Court has had on general industry in the country has now been seen. It has been brought in on practically every case and it has meant that we have had peace in the general industrial sphere of the country.

Senator Hawkins also mentioned that appeal to the Labour Court is practically the last thing before strike. I do not think that is so. Many employers and employees, when employees do make demands, and the unions too are most anxious to have this appeal to the Labour Court made straight away rather than to wait for a threat of strike. They are not anxious that it should go to that point. They are anxious for peace and harmony in their business and, for that reason, they wish the dispute or demand to be tried by the Labour Court.

In practically every case that has gone to the Labour Court, the employers and employees have accepted the Labour Court's recommendations although they do not carry the force of law. The Minister is quite satisfied that this is the best course to adopt in relation to road workers and the other persons who are named in this Bill. They have been promised arbitration and the Minister, to follow up on that, has offered this course of arbitration and conciliation to the workers.

Senator Hawkins mentioned that the Minister did not say that this is the last word on this matter. I do not think anything done in any Parliament can be said to be the last word. If it is found that this legislation does not work out as well as we hope it will we can examine the whole position again at the end of a year or two years but possibly there will be no necessity to do that.

Senator Hawkins spoke about strike action by employees of industrial authorities. The strike weapon has been used very little by employees of local authorities. Strike action is not used very much by employees of local authorities because usually the effect of their going on strike would not have any immediate consequences. It is not as if it concerned supplies of material goods or products which people require every day. The result is that if employees of local authorities go on strike and if the strike lasts even for quite a while, nobody will be upset about it. In that way, strike action is not as effective in their case as it is in many other cases.

Senator McGuire wanted to know how the rate of wages was to be fitted in and if the standerd was to be set on the basis of the richest county. There is another board, the Agricultural Wages Board, which does not set the rate of agricultural wages for the whole country on the basis of the richest county. They usually have a zoning or regional basis; when this measure comes into force, a somewhat similar procedure will be adopted in the case of road workers and there will be a regional basis, with various wages in the different areas.

Senator Murphy said he was very pleased to hear that conciliation machinery for the officers of local authorities was to be set up. The Government have that matter under consideration at present and it will be brought forward, but all these things take quite a while, and there is therefore a necessity for this Bill in the meantime.

Senator Cogan spoke of road workers being in a different category from industrial workers and said that industrialists sometimes work for profit and sometimes to avoid losses. I have never heard of an industrialist starting up a concern to avoid losses. I do not think they try to avoid losses —their aim is not to do so but to make profits.

The Senator also mentioned a point which I heard for the first time, that county council officials, county surveyors and so on, work on the basis of relieving unemployment rather than on the basis of employing people strictly for the repair of roads, that they employ workers from a social welfare point of view and that it is not a matter of getting value for money. I have been a member of a local authority for quite a while and I never heard that gospel being preached before. There are such things as relief works to which the local authorities contribute and which come down to the local authority in the winter. Local authorities contribute a very small proportion—it might be only one in ten—towards the money subscribed by the central Government. That is work for the relief of unemployment and in that case the men must be taken from the labour exchange where they are on what is known as the "dole"; but I have never heard of a county surveyor employing men for the purpose of relieving unemployment and I do not think any member of a county council has. He tries to get the best value he can for his money, for those who employ him and for the ratepayers in general.

As a member of a local authority, I thought this Bill was very welcome because I have been on boards and have seen applications coming in from workers in relation to wages. The first question usually asked by the members is: "What are the wages in the neighbouring counties?" That is why I was surprised when Senator Tierney mentioned a difference of 12/6 in the rate of wages as between one county and another. That could not occur in my county, because, when an application comes in, the members usually inquire as to the average rate of wages in neighbouring counties. They get that information at the next meeting and the rate is usually struck as an average between the rates in five or six neighbouring counties, so that we are always fairly near the mark relative to these other counties.

I know from my own experience that the Bill will be very welcome in my county council, because people often ask if we could not have wages fixed on a reasonable basis and avoid Party politics being played with regard to them. This will remove wages from the realm of Party politics, and I know that it will be welcomed by members of every Party in my council. We are anxious that it should be removed from the realm of Party politics and that the men should get a reasonable wage fixed by some authority with power to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.

Bill considered in Committee.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cogan

Is this the section that brings in county council workers?

Mr. Crotty

Section 2, yes.

Mr. Cogan

It brings in the servants of local authorities and it includes a number of other people—established officers, such as health inspectors and others. I want to re-establish the point that there is a very definite distinction between county council employees and industrial employees. County councils do not on all occasions employ men solely for the purpose of getting the most out of them and of getting the work done, but they must, by reason of the fact that they are a public authority, have regard to social welfare generally, and it is true, even if the Parliamentary Secretary has never heard about it, that county councils could at the present stage of mechanisation of road work dispense with three-quarters of their employees, if it were not for social considerations. For that reason, I think it is necessary to put employment by local authorities in a different category from employment by private employers.

The Parliamentary Secretary would be well advised to consider the matter again. He may say that this is an improvement on the present position, and it is perhaps an improvement in one way, but it may be a disimprovement in another way. It would be desirable if a certain amount of uniformity could be achieved between the rates of wages in the different counties. That would be one of the advantages. On the other hand, there is the disadvantage that it does not remove political considerations from the fixing of remuneration. If a section of the members of a county council are intensely dissatisfied with the recommendations of the Labour Court, they can make the county council a forum in which to attack the Labour Court, left, right and centre. In that way, the Labour Court and its decisions will be carried on into local discussions and local disputes and it will be dragged into debate in the local Press. That, in the main, would have a harmful effect. That would not happen to the same extent in regard to recommendations of the Labour Court as between employers and employees.

While I am not opposing the section, because it may bring certain advantages and because it is recommended by the Government, I think it is not the best solution of the problem. A much better solution would be to set up a special tribunal to deal with the special problems of the local authority employees.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 3 and 4 agreed to

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.