It is proposed to take the Electricity (Special Provisions) (Repeal) Bill with this Bill.
Industrial Relations Bill, 1966: Second Stage.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
In moving the Second Reading of this Bill in the Dáil, I moved at the same time the Second Reading of another Bill—the Trade Union Bill, 1966—and both Bills, were debated together. While there is a definite link between the two Bills, inasmuch as both are designed to improve the processes of pay determination, the Bill before the House can stand on its own.
In the field of industrial relations the State's concern is to provide machinery so that disputes can be resolved before developing into great tests of strength. This implies that the employer and worker would do their level best to find a solution before turning for outside help and that, if they invoke outside help in the form of the procedures and machinery provided by the State, they would use it for the genuine purpose of reaching a peaceful solution. The House will realise, however, that, if a party to a dispute decides from the beginning to have a test of strength, whatever the machinery, he cannot be prevented from doing so. That is one of the features of a free country. Equally well if people set their expectations too high, and if the machinery does not give them what they want, they may reject the referee and then decide to go on to a test of strength. Again our freedom allows that to happen.
Apart from these considerations, I would say that, in the case of rights in which disciplinary matters may be involved, I believe that a quick examination by an independent person would prevent escalation and help to avoid some of the sudden stoppages to which such disputes may lead. Strikes due to rights disputes are quite numerous in this country, but most of them are of short duration, with the result that only about 20 per cent of the man days lost in industrial disputes are lost because of such disputes. The vast bulk of the man-days lost arose from disputes about wages and hours of employment, so that our main trouble stems from conflicts about pay. Senators will be aware of the suggestion made from time to time that the removal of incomes decisions from the area of dispute would be a solution. As I understand it, this would mean having a tight-knit system in which all incomes, wages, dividends, rents, professional fees, profits and so on, would be determined by authority, as distinct from the present free system where wages and salaries are fixed by negotiation.
It is clear that, while the setting up of such a body is being strongly canvassed, there is but a very small body of opinion in favour of giving it powers to enforce decisions or exact sanctions on defaulters. How compliance with the decisions or recommendations of such a body could be brought about has still to be worked out, but it is clear that a degree of commitment not so far achieved in this country will be required. We already have experience of recommendations of the Labour Court being rejected. In the case of non-acceptance of recommendations, whether of the Labour Court or of some other body, the freedom to strike would remain.
However discouraging the record of the past may be in the case of nonacceptance of Labour Court recommendations, I believe that we should do our best to work out procedures which would permit of a policy on incomes, on the lines envisaged in the Third Programme for Economic and Social Development to be formulated and operated.
I think it timely at this point to invite the attention of Senators to the effect created in the minds of our people by the high proportion of Labour Court recommendations rejected by workers. I have been disturbed by this trend which has now developed to the stage at which more than half the workers involved in Labour Court hearing last year rejected the court's recommendations and then instructed their unions to proceed, sometimes through strike action, for better terms than had been recommended by the court. In addition, there have been cases where groups of workers have refused to allow their case to go before the Labour Court, even when the court, apprehending trouble, offered its services.
There is no doubt that in these circumstances the court is, in the words of the Third Programme, being debased. With the rejection by a majority of workers of its recommendations, I invite Senators to consider whether the status of the court is not now reaching the point where its retention must be seriously questioned. To continue to retain an institution when it is being treated in this way by those for whose benefit it was set up is, in the opinion of some who have commented on recent trends, to risk undermining the confidence of our citizens in the apparatus of Government generally.
Whatever the reasons for the lack of respect for the court, the whole situation must be regarded as unsatisfactory and I want to tell the House that the Government will not insist on holding on to the court in the face of attitudes of the kind which have been developing recently.
This Bill has, however, been drafted on the assumption that the court is to be continued and on the assumption too that those who want it continued will take meaningful steps to see that its services are used for the national purpose for which the court exists, namely, to help promote harmonious industrial relations and to prevent and settle industrial disputes.
I propose in this Bill to introduce a new type of machinery for the settlement of certain kinds of disputes which should be of considerable benefit to workers. Quite a number of disputes develop about such things as discipline and dismissals and often these find their way to the Labour Court. In such cases something is needed to give a quick and authoritative opinion. It is proposed to take power, therefore, to appoint one or more rights commissioners.
A commissioner will investigate privately and quickly a dispute which arises out of a right which a worker claims to have, stemming from an agreement, a custom or a practice. The commissioner can make this investigation at the request of either party to the dispute unless the other party objects. If the other party does object, then the dispute would have to be dealt with in the way such disputes would be dealt with today. The parties to a dispute before the rights commissioner will be free to accept or reject the recommendation made by the commissioner. Either party may appeal the commissioner's recommendation to the Labour Court but only on the basis that the court's decision on the appeal will be binding on the parties. The rights commissioner will not hear a case which has been before the Labour Court and the court will not hear a case which had been before a comsissioner save, of course, by way of appeal.
I should like to draw attention to the proposal in section 6 of the Bill which envisages an extension of the scope of the duties of the Conciliation Officers, who will in future be known as Industrial Relations Officers.
Senators will be aware of the part played by these officers in preventing and settling disputes. The Conciliation Service was set up under the 1946 Act for the purpose of mediating in disputes. The officers of the Service have succeeded in averting many stoppages of work; they have also succeeded, in certain cases, in getting the parties to negotiate better working arrangements and to establish longterm negotiating machinery through the operation of such bodies as Joint Industrial Councils.
The Services had to be expanded considerably over the past few years and conferences are now being organised at the rate of nearly 1,000 a year.
In the course of their work the officers of the Service amass much valuable information. They see where good relations operate; and conversely they see the defects in procedures and practices which cause tensions and breakdowns in communications and which sometimes lead to stoppages of work.
I believe that the fund of experience accumulated by these officers, and the confidence and goodwill they enjoy among employers, managers, personnel officers and trade unions, should be used more extensively for the improvement of industrial relations.
I have already asked the Labour Court to examine means by which the members of the Service might make their knowledge and advice available to managements and trade unions in the interest of bringing about improved procedures in industries and services. It is on management that the main responsibility for establishing and maintaining satisfactory procedures rests and I would like to encourage managements to take advantage of this knowledge and advice, particularly in cases where defects are known to exist.
In the proposals for this legislation which I first published in 1966, it had been suggested that, in relation to the various Conciliation and Arbitration Schemes which exist at present for the employees in the Civil Service, the Local Government service et cetera, instead of having a number of different arbitrators for the different bodies, claims which could not be resolved by conciliation process should be referred for determination by the Labour Court, the court, for that purpose, to be augmented by individuals drawn from a panel of persons with economic, social or other appropriate qualifications. This was proposed because of the multiplicity of arbitrators involved, who by applying different considerations to the cases brought before them, were handing down decisions which were producing discontent among different groups in the public service and generating an undesirable amount of leapfrogging as well. I felt that the Labour Court, with its full-time and continuing responsibility in the field of industrial relations, could bring to bear upon these issues its much broader knowledge of the whole scene; and, while not necessarily aiming at uniformity in pay and conditions, I had hoped that, under such an arrangement, they could bring about a better relationship between the different groups in the public sector and between public and private employment.
The unions and staff associations in the public sector objected to this proposal. They complained that they had no say in the selection of the Chairman of the Labour Court, whereas, under the terms of their agreements, they had a say in the nomination of the chairman of their arbitration body.
I was disappointed in not getting broad acceptance of my original proposal and in place of that proposal I am providing that two members of the Labour Court, one a workers' member and one an employers' member, will become members of each of the various arbitration bodies, and thereby let the body have the benefit of their experience from the Labour Court point of view. I put this forward as a second best and only because of the refusal of the staff associations concerned to accept the original proposal.
I am providing in section 21 of the Bill for the dissolution of the Electricity Supply Board manual workers and general employees tribunals. Being statutory, these have introduced an element of rigidity which is not suitable to conditions today, and by abolishing them I will be leaving the way open for the ESB to negotiate with its employees for whatever system of industrial relations procedures suits their conditions. They are already in close negotiation on this matter. I would hope that the system which evolves will make it necessary for the parties to have real deep negotiations before bringing any problems forward for formal investigation by the Labour Court. Senators will be aware that the abolition of the tribunals has also been recommended by the Committee on Industrial Relations in the ESB.
A 1966 proposal was that the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 should be amended whereby the Labour Court would not investigate a trade dispute unless both or all parties asked it to act and undertook to accept the Court's decision, the penalties recommended for refusal to accept to be, in the case of workers, withdrawal of the protection of the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, for three months, and, in the case of an employer, an appropriate fine.
The concept behind this proposal was to encourage the settlement of disputes as early on in the line of procedure as possible, and to enhance the status of the Labour Court by making it more remote and by exacting a "price" for its services. If the parties to a dispute knew that the ultimate piece of machinery would be available to them only on the condition that they would undertake to accept the findings, it was hoped that the parties would make greater efforts to resolve the dispute between themselves or, failing that, by invoking the court's conciliation service. If, however, as foreshadowed by the ICTU reaction to the proposals, parties to industrial disputes simply refused to use the Labour Court, the situation would then be that the State had provided a court which would rarely, if ever, be "in session" and the members of which could do no more than stand by while public representatives and other prominent citizens tried to settle disputes which were unresolved at conciliation level.
Experience suggests that State-sponsored procedures aimed at promoting harmony in industrial relations cannot be successfully operated if they have built into them the opposition of the parties concerned in disputes, and no good would be achieved by giving the parties machinery which they do not want and would not use. It is not proposed, therefore, to make any fundamental change in the role of the court, but rather to make such changes as it is hoped will make the court a more effective instrument in promoting industrial peace. Power is being taken to appoint, if necessary, extra members to the Labour Court so that it can operate in three divisions instead of two as at present, and to have available a full-time as well as a part-time Deputy Chairman Pensions will be provided for members of the Labour Court. I feel, however, that although I now propose to leave the court as it is there should be some moral commitment on the parties who want a hearing and I propose that normally the court will not investigate a dispute unless, following failure to settle at conciliation level, there is a request for an investigation from the parties. Too frequently unions at present let the employer ask for the hearing (or let the court itself take the initiative) and then, if complaint is made later about rejection of the court's award, say, in defence, that they did not ask for a hearing but were "brought" or "dragged" before the court.
The Industrial Relations Act, 1946 provides that when the Labour Court investigates a dispute, it shall make a recommendation as to how it thinks the dispute should be settled. From time to time the court finds itself in the position where it considers that the parties should continue or resume discussions among themselves and it does not make a formal recommendation as to how the disputes should be settled. While it may be argued that such a step by the court could be considered as the making of a statutory recommendation that the dispute could best be settled by further talks, I consider that the matter should be removed from the realm of doubt. Accordingly, I propose that the 1946 Act should be amended to provide that the court may make a recommendation instead of that it shall do so. It will be provided, however, that (a) if workers or a trade union ask the court to investigate a dispute and agree beforehand (as a moral commitment) to accept the recommendation or (b) if the parties to a conciliation conference agree upon a limited issue on which they wish to have the court's recommendation, and agree in advance to accept the court's ruling, there will be an obligation on the court to investigate in private session on a priority basis, and make an early recommendation.
The Industrial Relations Act, 1946, provides that the Labour Court may hold any sitting or part of a sitting in private. I had proposed in 1966 that in future the proceedings of the court would normally be in private unless the court was of opinion that, in the public interest, a particular case should be heard in public. Arguments can be advanced for and against both public and private hearings. In the case of public hearings there is a tendency for the parties to start afresh and cover ground already covered at conciliation. There is also a temptation for spokesmen at public hearings to strike "party line" attitudes for publicity purposes. Against private hearings, it can be argued, however, that the public should know what is going on and that industrial disputes which affect the public should not be resolved behind closed doors.
I should like to give the parties themselves a say in this matter and I now propose that the investigation of trade disputes by the court will be in private but that the court shall, if a party to the dispute so requests, hold a hearing in public. Even in that case the court may hold any part of a sitting in private in order to meet the situation in which information was being submitted which the court considered was confidential to the parties concerned.
Section 68 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, imposes on the Labour Court when making a recommendation, the obligation to take into account a number of considerations which can contradict one another. I propose, therefore, that that section should be amended to read as follows:
The court, having investigated a trade dispute, may make a recommendation setting forth its opinion on the terms on which it should be settled.
The Labour Court will be given a new function in relation to rules of fair employment. It is intended that the Labour Court should encourage representative groups of workers and employers in various industries to work out and agree upon the basic conditions of good employment for workers covering such things as notice, discipline, dismissals, and so on. Where these are agreed upon, they would be converted into statutory rules by the Labour Court and could then be legally enforced. It is hoped by this method to afford to workers some better certainty and clarity as to their rights in this area, that is those facets of employment not immediately concerned with the direct wage element.
There are some tidying up features such as making it clear that the Labour Court can give an interpretation of an employment agreement if asked to do so by the parties to the agreement; giving employers the right to complain to the court about non-compliance with the terms of a registered employment agreement; giving the Minister's inspectors power to check on compliance with registered agreements in the same way as they check on employment regulation orders and reducing from 30 to 21 days the period for making representations about the terms of proposed employment regulation orders.
At present workers employed by or under the State have not access to the Labour Court. Many of the persons in this category are, of course, included in the various public service arbitration boards, but there are some, like forestry workers, who have neither the arbitration boards nor access to the Labour Court. It is proposed to correct this by giving State employees access to the Labour Court if they are not covered by a conciliation and arbitration scheme.
The review of the law on trade unions and on industrial relations has been going on for a long time and a great variety of ideas and propositions have been examined. There is an extraordinary sensitiveness and suspicion about Government action in these areas. Nearly everybody will say that our system of industrial relations is not good and will urge the Government "to do something about it." The Government does want to do something about it but does not want to transfer to itself all the responsibilities and anxieties for good industrial relations which must rest primarily with employers and workers.
The search has been, therefore, to identify what is wrong at present and to see if agreement can be reached on the remedies. Some union spokesmen will say as they have often said before: "We know what is wrong with industrial relations. We know where the trouble lies, we are in the best position to know what to do. Leave it to us and we will cure it in our own way." I would be very happy to leave it to them to find a cure if I thought that by their own unaided efforts they could produce results but recent happenings do not encourage one to believe that the results which not only the trade union movement but the community as a whole desire can come about without the aid of legislation.
I do not claim that legislation alone can produce an answer. The answer must come from the disposition of those concerned in industrial relations to improve them but I do think that legislation has a part to play here. I believe that the majority of trade unionists, while wanting to retain their basic freedoms, want as well to live in a stable society where they have for their support a strong trade union movement which will assure them of orderly progression. There are, however, a small minority who are living in the past and who are relying upon trade union ideas and attitudes which may have been appropriate for an age which is now past. They are fearful of change and see in every suggestion which is put to them "the thin end of the wedge" by which the Government will gradually take over control of the unions or take away their authority.
I do not know how they can be reassured that this is not the intention. Maybe they can be reassured by their more forward thinking brethren and encouraged to give a fair trial to the ideas being advanced at this time. It is because of these fears that I suggest, and suggested to the Dáil, we should hasten slowly but I do not think that we should wait another twenty years before suggesting further changes. I think we should contemplate making changes as they occur to us and according as they can be agreed and accepted as good ideas.
I have outlined my proposals for improving the situation in this complex field of industrial relations. I think it is clear to all Senators that in this area real and lasting improvements cannot be effected by legislation alone. Rather is the purpose of legislation to facilitate those directly concerned to work the system that has been evolved here in the smoothest way practicable.
However, I would ask the House to endorse my view that, unless the freedom given to employers and trade unions is matched with a sense of responsibility, that freedom is in danger of being abused—as indeed it has been in the past—with damaging, and sometimes cruel, consequences for many of the people and for the country as a whole.
Much thought, time and effort has gone into the building up of institutions and procedures and these have been made freely available to those people wishing to use them. Though there could never be a legal compulsion on any party to use any or all of these procedures, I feel strongly that there ought to be a very strong moral obligation to use the disputesettling machinery before thought is given to ordering strikes, lockouts or pickets.
I do not think there will be any serious objection in principle to the Industrial Relations Bill which the Minister is introducing today. Nevertheless, it is a matter of some difficulty to decide how one might approach the discussion of this Bill on Second Stage.
As it stands, this is a Bill which is largely concerned with improving the operation of the Labour Court. A great many of the provisions in it are details in regard to the operation of the Labour Court. One could discuss these improvements and the effects they make; one could also discuss the whole function of the Labour Court, and the Minister has done this to some extent in opening the debate. However, as the Minister has also indicated, this is part of a much wider picture. It is only one section of what is a problem of quite large scope and great importance in the economy at the present time.
Accordingly a debate of this type brings in the whole question of industrial relations at every level and on every aspect. It brings also into question the whole nature of the organisation of Irish industry. We cannot help but think, as we consider the operation of the Labour Court, what its operation might be in the future, and we cannot help but think not only of the disputes that arise but of what are or might be the deep-seated reasons underlying those disputes.
Neither can we exclude from our minds the consequences with regard to productivity and economic development of a failure to keep the machinery of conciliation and arbitration and of the settlement of industrial disputes continually up to meeting the changing circumstances in the country generally and in industry in particular. So there is a certain uncertainty as to which of these things is the most important, which of these aspects should be stressed, in a debate of this type.
In a way this is almost a reflection of the Bill itself because, having read through this Bill, I certainly got the impression that the Bill itself seems uncertain as to its true role. I think that the Bill reflects in its present form the rather chequered history which it has had as draft legislation. We have here a Bill which now, I think, bears the traces of having started out as an attempt to do much more than is in the Bill as it comes to us finally. So we have here a Bill which might be described as being a little uncertain of its own true role.
The Bill, as it comes to us, is essentially a modification of the Labour Court, its membership and its procedures, but it has a number of other extensions—welcome but perhaps, as I say, survivors from what might have been a more thoroughgoing piece of legislation. I do not say this in any sense that it was wrong that the Minister should have modified his original proposals or that the Bill as it reaches us now is necessarily defective. I agree with what the Minister has said in his opening speech on this Stage of the Bill, that this is certainly in an area in which while we must move we must move slowly, an area in which precipitate action might, indeed, lead to positive disimprovement rather than improvement of the present situation.
The measures such as the setting up of Rights Commissioners and the provisions in regard to the Arbitration Board are important changes not related to the actual Labour Court itself, but, as I have said already, the Bill has very wide connotations. It is indeed related to the trade union legislation which is still in the Dáil. It is related further to the whole question of incomes and prices policy which is a continual matter of discussion but so far not of any very determined action. Admitting these doubts as to how one might tackle the problem, I propose to deal rather briefly with a few of these aspects. We can, I think, leave to the Committee Stage the details of the modifications of the Labour Court procedure and while merely noting them at this Stage talk a little about the wider context. This may be held to unduly broaden the debate, not, I may say, Sir, with respect, beyond what is relevant, but beyond what concerns the immediate provisions of the Bill before us.
Our problem is that unless we consider this Bill in the wider context we will not be able to judge its effectiveness. The Bill is a difficult one to read. The order of the sections, the topics which are dealt with, reflect the fact that this is essentially a Bill to amend the Industrial Relations Act of 1946. I propose in commenting at this stage on its provisions to ignore the order of the sections in the Bill and to group the provisions together in order that we can appreciate what is being done. There are a number of provisions in the Bill which are largely concerned with the members of the Labour Court and with the Labour Court as such. There is provision in the Bill to increase the number of ordinary members from four to six and to increase the number of Deputy Chairmen from one to two, and accordingly to enable the Labour Court to increase the number of independent divisions of the Labour Court from two divisions, which is allowable under present legislation, to three divisions.
This is, of course, a welcome provision. The volume of the work and the necessity that the work of the Labour Court should always be handled with the utmost expedition indeed indicates that this is certainly a move in the right direction. It is an attempt to update after 23 years the original provisions in regard to the Labour Court, but I wonder does it go far enough? I wonder are three divisions of the Labour Court based in Dublin enough for what will have to be done in future years? The Minister has indicated—and I have already said that I agree with him—that this legislation can only be part of a pattern, only one contribution towards the solution, but it is easy to look at other countries whose history of industrial relations is somewhat better than ours and to look at a single difference between those countries and ours as being the key difference.
Thus I am sure the Minister and Members of the House have heard it said that a great deal of the success of German industry can be attributed to the fact of the relatively small number of German unions compared with the multiplicity of unions here. We have heard this preached in this country in the context of trade union reform, but I should like to turn to another aspect of the difference between trade union and industrial relations legislation in Germany and this legislation here, not to say that what I am going to point to is the key factor but to point to the fact that it is one of the key factors which, perhaps, have given German industry and the German economy a happier history than our own in the past 20 years. With due allowance for the fact that Germany is a much larger country than this, with a much larger manufacturing industry, nevertheless, this difference of scale does not, I think, fully account for the fact that in Germany there are over 100 local labour courts. In Germany the work of what corresponds to our Labour Court is decentralised, and very thoroughly decentralised, and it is down towards the local community that the first effort of the operation of a labour court or something very close to it exists. Above this, there are something like ten or 12—I am not sure but it is of that order—regional labour courts, one for each of the landes of the Federal Government and, of course, above this a Federal Court of appeal.
Though the Minister has said that he does not think it right to wait for another 20 years to come back with legislation for further development, I wonder if in view of the volume of work which is being done by the Labour Court, the necessity to have the Labour Court hearings and decisions dealt with at times with very great speed, even at the risk of speeding up work to such an extent that there would be gaps, the Minister should not have gone further in this direction in this devolution from the Labour Court idea of one single Labour Court.
I wonder, too, if in the operation of the three divisions, the Minister might think in terms of the decentralisation of the Labour Court. We hope that in the years to come with this Bill governing industrial relations we shall see a very great resurgence or indeed a great increase in industry outside Dublin and the rest of Leinster. We hope to see the development of our industrial estates in many centres and hope that the move towards industry in smaller centres will not completely die away.
I wonder if from the point of view of the development of expertise in dealing with the delicate problem of industrial relations that, in fact, experience in dealing with industrial relations problems relating to the Dublin area would really be so valuable in regard to the problems that will arise in other areas, in areas where all the difficulties of the transformation of rural workers to industrial workers will be at their most intense.
In this particular provision in regard to the number of members of the court, the Minister has adjusted what was clearly wrong and what clearly showed a weakness in the operation of the court in the past and in the very recent past with regard to the job that it is currently doing. I wonder if the provision looks sufficiently ahead into what will be the task in the next five or ten years in this respect.
There are other provisions in regard to membership of the court. There is the very welcome pension scheme for members of the court. One merely asks why this has been done after 23 years. Surely it should have been dealt with before now, but we are thankful that it has been dealt with. Luckily, many of those who have given long service to the court are still members and in respect of them this pension scheme is in time.
There is a change in Section 15 in so far as the annual report of the court no longer goes to the Government but goes, quite appropriately, to the Minister for Labour now that this Department has been established. This prompts me to say that if one looks at the report of the Labour Court one will see that it is a rather skimpy affair. It may be that the court, as a tribunal, fails and that it can do little more than to give a hard, factual and cold statistical account of what its work has been.
I wonder, too, about the idea reflected in this legislation that conciliation officers are now to be general industrial relations officers. The Minister has mentioned that they can amass a great deal of expertise and information. I do not know if this determination not to deal with the necessary and the urgent but to help in the prevention as well as the cure of industrial disputes might not be reflected in the provision requiring that the Labour Court will report to the Minister. There may well be matters which come to the notice of the Labour Court with regard to practice in other countries and these might not be part of their report.
It might be as well that the Labour Court should merely bring these matters to the notice of the Minister and that these might as well as included in the report of the Minister's own Department. When I look at the Annual Report of the Court, the only adjective which comes to my mind is "skimpy".
There is one other point in regard to membership of the Labour Court and that is that we still have the composition of the Labour Court as purely a representational one—representations from what are called, tritely, the two sides of industry with a chairman and the deputy chairman appointed by the Minister. We do not seem yet to have any reflection of the devices which are sometimes used in other countries with regard to appointing expertise assessors of various kinds to assist the court in their deliberation.
This matter was discussed at an early stage in regard to industrial relations legislation. The court can certainly call on experts for advice on particular points but I wonder if there is not something to be said for the appointment of persons who would act as technical assessors to the Labour Court much in the same way as a judge sitting in an Admiralty case would have a technical assessor to guide him on certain facts. I should be glad if the Minister would indicate to us any views that he may have on this matter.
Apart from provisions dealing with the membership of the Labour Court, there are quite a number of provisions in this Bill concerned with the operation of the Labour Court. One of these is the renaming of the conciliation officers as industrial relations officers. This represents a coming of age of the work of Labour Court officers. It represents a degree of maturity and a recognition that there are now conditions for voluntary negotiation and that the Labour Court and its officers are no longer something in the nature of a fire brigade but that they can exercise more valuable functions at an earlier stage. This provision is very welcome.
The Minister has referred to the fact that there are conflicting arguments as to whether it is more appropriate that the Labour Court should investigate in private or in public. In regard to this I can only say that the drafting of section 8 in this regard is somewhat puzzling. However, this is a matter that can be dealt with on Committee Stage.
Also, in regard to the operation of the court, sections 18, 19 and 20 make certain changes which again we can discuss on the Committee Stage. Again, one can just at this stage welcome the provisions in section 18 that in fact the court will only investigate after a report by an industrial relations officer and after being requested to do so by the parties is, I think, a welcome provision. It does not, of course, quite sensibly, leave power to the Labour Court to act in exceptional circumstances and to disregard this particular provision. Section 19 again is, the effect that the Labour Court are not bound to make a recommendation and that it can prudently refrain from making a recommendation it if does not think it is in the interests of good industrial relations to do so and is a very sensible amendment as also is the proposal under section 20 where there is an undertaking by the parties to abide by the decision that the case can be considered as one of high priority.
The next group of sections which I would like to comment on are those concerned with employment agreements. I think employment agreements are one of the hopes for industrial peace and a gradual movement towards better industrial relations in this country and here we welcome the developments in the Bill in facilitating the operations of the Labour Court in this regard. The Labour Court has power under the 1946 Act but those are being amended under sections 7, 10, 11 and 12.
I should like to raise one point, however, in regard to employment agreements. I would suggest to the Minister that the Labour Court might exercise some function in regard to what might be considered as nonregistered employment agreements. Under the legislation as it exists the position is if an agreement is of a certain type it can be registered and will be enforceable in certain ways. I wonder if there is not something to be said for a requirement that where there is an employment agreement which is either in the form which is appropriate that it be registered in the Labour Court or that either of the Parties do not wish to have this agreement registered nevertheless this agreement is part of our industrial relations scene. Indeed it is a very definite part of the custom and practice of the particular industry in which the agreement is being made. I wonder if it would not be advisable that the Labour Court should always be aware of those nonregistered and non-enforceable agreements which are in existence. If there is not some cases that perhaps there be a requirement that agreements shall we say of a certain degree of formularity that there might not be a requirement here that such agreements, without being registered in the Labour Court, might well be notified to the Labour Court.
There are a number of other changes in regard to the scope of the Labour Court. In section 17 there is statutory provision in regard to the classes of workers which as far as I can make out is really a re-enactment of the 1955 Act and these give a slight amount of conciliation by wiping out that particular Act. More important are the provisions in regard to arbitration boards in section 51 and in regard to the ESB Tribunals in section 21. Here we have an important step. In regard to the question of arbitration boards the Minister in his speech indicated he hoped that in fact those boards would virtually disappear and that there would be an agreement rather than having those arbitration boards, that the parties who obviously appeared before them might all come before the Labour Court. He indicated one of the serious objections on behalf of the associations representing employees in this regard was that they would have no say whatsoever even indirectly in the choice of the chairman.
I should like to point out to the Minister in the case of certain bodies of employees, notably professional employees, the situation is even more serious than this. With the structure of our industrial relations machinery professional employees will in fact not only have no say in the choice of the Chairman of the Labour Court but even under what the Minister now proposes will have no say whatsoever, as I see it, in the selection of the worker representatives since a large number of those professional bodies are not affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions being affiliated to the Federation of Professional Associations. I think, indeed, Senator Crowley might care to say whether there will be some bodies affiliated to the Irish Congress of Professional Civil Servants Association who are not affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and in fact here there is lack of representation.
It might not be possible in bringing in global legislation to provide for matters of this sort but I think it is something which should not be completely forgotten. I should like to say here, talking for a moment about my own professional association, the Engineers' Association having worked honestly and fairly with the arbitration machinery which was given to them, unfortunately have got little thanks for it. The position is that the local authority engineers, having made a claim in February, 1967, to the City and County Managers' Association, a claim which in response to the urgings of the Minister and his colleagues, was based completely on productivity, a claim made on the basis that local authority engineers were entitled to an increase not for status not for differential but that part of the tremendous productivity improvements they had been responsible for should be given to them. So it was by an arbitrator in July 1968 and approved of by the local authorities, and having gone and made their case in the way in which they were asked to make it, they then find themselves in January, 1969, just after the close of what the Minister for Finance has now indicated was a great bumper year, those persons who had operated their arbitration machinery, were told that the award could not be honoured, that the whole thing must go to a new review board, the whole matter must be considered. So, they find themselves with promises that the review board would take no more than two months, still without an answer.
I do not want, on the occasion of this Bill, to indulge in any special pleading on behalf of a group to which I belong myself but I want to say amid the larger problems I should not like to think that the Minister would forget there are smaller groups who are important not only in their own eyes but I think objectively so and in any full scheme of industrial relations those groups must not be left to be tagged on at the end. They must not be left so that somehow they are squeezed into the iron maiden of the legislation that suits the larger industrial scene. All I can say in this regard is that my own profession at the moment are seriously disturbed over the fact that having acted responsibly in a matter of a dispute of this type, acted with a high degree of restraint they have indeed had little thanks and therefore little incentive for behaving in a similar fashion in the future. Care should be taken in any disturbance of machinery. The various groups who have been given arbitration and conciliation machinery do not think that it is perfect. They have indicated to the Minister that they have learned how this machinery works and why, on occasions, they would like to see it operating differently, certainly more speedily, but nevertheless they feel that the Minister should be slow to interfere with this particular method which has evolved.
In section 21, the Minister is proposing to us the abolition of the ESB Tribunal. He has indicated that this tribunal is unduly rigid and that it must now be replaced by a better system of negotiation within the ESB. On this point, and on the question of the repeal of the ESB Act, which the Minister is also proposing because he feels there is a substantial hope for better negotiating machinery and better industrial relations in the ESB, it would be in accordance with the Minister's own approach here today to realise that though the Fogarty Report on the ESB recommended the abolition of the ESB Tribunal, it recommended a great deal more. The Fogarty Report also recommended that there should be a rationalisation in the ESB, not only on the side of the unions but also on the side of management and their personnel department. The report also recommended the establishment of works committees in the ESB and also direct worker representation on the management of the ESB. We hope the works committees will be established quickly. The Fogarty Report recommended representation of actual ESB workers on the board of management and not merely trade union representation at board level.
In regard to matters in the Bill here today, there is one other important provision to which I should like to refer. I refer to the establishment under sections 13 and 14 of rights commissioners. The Minister has done something good here. An attempt is being made to separate the largescale dispute concerned with pay and general conditions from the dispute concerned with an individual, or perhaps a few people, with regard to rights which may well be custom and practice at a local level. This is definitely something to be recommended. As I indicated in my opening remarks on this Bill, it cannot be regarded merely as an amendment to the 1946 Bill. It must be considered in a wider context. It is one aspect only of a general problem.
If we asked ourselves how could we judge whether the Labour Court was successful or not, it would be foolish to do this from any narrow viewpoint. Do we say the Labour Court is successful when they deal with a large number of cases? Do we say when the Labour Court has a high number of rejections of its awards that such rejections indicate failure? This is not necessarily so. It may be that the Labour Court is operating most successfully when dealing with a small number of cases, if in fact such cases are the really difficult ones which could not be level. It is difficult to find a criterion for judging whether the Labour Court is doing a good job or not. We must remember that in all industrial relations two systems operate—the formal legal systems and the informal system, which is often the more effective one. In our industrial relations policy we must have regard for both of these systems. By legislation we can erect the formal system of industrial relations but account must be taken of the informal relations which exist in industry. If these informal relations are ignored the legislation will become useless. Such legislation can never replace such informal relations. They must work in close harmony.
The role of the Labour Court in regard to the incomes policy will be a matter of some difficulty. The Labour Court, operating in accordance with this Act, certainly has an influence on the incomes policy. There must be some control of prices and incomes, and there is a real problem in reconciling the true independence of the Labour Court with the necessity to harmonise the work of the Labour Court and the work of any prices and incomes committee. This Bill is an advance in industrial relations but it is only a small advance on a rather narrow front.
One finds it hard to avoid clichés in discussing problems of industrial relations. We can replace the outworn clichés by forming some new phrases. We can look at the work, not only of the Labour Court but also of the Minister's Department, and see that they are demonstrating quite clearly that no longer can we discuss the two sides of industrial problems. We can replace that cliché by talking about three sides of any industry—the employees and workers, the managers and owners, and also society and the public which must be protected by the independent members of the Labour Court and by the Minister's Department. In times of rapid economic growth we often find the traditional enemies of managers and workers in collusion together in certain instances at the expense of society in general. This must be reflected in the work, not only of the Labour Court, but of the Minister's own Department of Labour.
We talk of industrial war and industrial peace. We must remember when we speak in this metaphor that it is possible for war to break out by accident, it is possible that an accident can start a war in an unstable situation, but peace can never be achieved by accident, whether it be peace in world affairs or peace in the family. Peace in our industrial relations is something that can be achieved and maintained only by hard work and by a very determined effort.
In this Bill the Minister has improved the operation of the Labour Court, and in introducing it he has taken the right line that this is one instrument, one part of the problem, one corner of a large canvas. I have indicated that perhaps he might have gone a little further a little quicker, but he knows the scene better than I and his judgment may be right. I hope he will continue to watch this particular problem and not hesitate to come back to us.
I wish this Bill well. I congratulate the Labour Court on its tremendous contribution to the economy over the past 23 years and I hope this will be a prelude to still greater services.
I feel that every thinking person, certainly all the Parties represented in this House, will welcome this Bill inasmuch as it represents an outline of the Minister's approach, if not to a solution, at least to an improvement in the very complex area of industrial relations. It is important at the present time to emphasise, even at the risk of repetition, the significance of the far-reaching, vital importance of industrial relations to the future well-being of our country.
My personal feeling is that this Bill does not go far enough and I can go a long part of the way with Professor Dooge. At the same time I realise there are impediments and obstacles, some of which appear at the moment to be insuperable, and in this I sympathise with the Minister. Clearly the Bill is a product of the very uncertain times in which we live. The Bill has a note of uncertainty in many of its clauses and this is a reflection of the uncertainty of the present day. The stresses and tensions of modern living, the fierce competition in practically every section of industry, including competition for trained and experienced personnel, all these and other factors, contribute to the restlessness and anxiety which is felt by thousands of people in industry. This feeling of insecurity and unrest is very clearly and loudly expressed in the hesitancy of so many of our organisations even to approach the Labour Court and it is certainly reflected in the very high percentage of cases in which the recommendations of the court have been rejected.
In his opening speech, the Minister said that more than half the total number of workers affected by the recommendations of the court are in fact represented by the actual number of rejections by the court. Of course that it is a very serious position. Despite this fact, speaking as one who has had the experience of using the machinery of the court at every level, I wish to place on record that I do not think that this is a reflection on the efficacy or usefulness of the court. It is attributable to something more remote, something that perhaps we cannot identify, but I do not think it is any indication of failure of the fundamental purpose for which the court was established in the first instance and which has done a remarkably good job over a long period of years. I consider that the 1946 Act and the establishment of the Labour Court and its existence ever since has been more than justified by the results it has produced.
The establishment of the Labour Court was a unique experiment. During that period I attended at various conferences in England and elsewhere where the establishment of the court was referred to as a bold experiment on the part of the Irish people. Its work during the years has been closely watched and studied by many people in other countries which still lack this type of social machinery. I do not think for a moment that even with the high percentage of cases in which the court's recommendations are still rejected that this is an indictment of the court itself or any reflection on its usefulness.
I remember the late Tom Johnson, one of the original members, describe the court's functions as a court of expediency and I doubt if that interpretation could be improved. It must remain and continue to be a court of expediency. It must deal with the many issues and problems of today and it cannot obviously lay down in advance guidelines and principles on which all cases can be decided. The court is one of the most useful institutions established by this State and I am anxious to ensure that nothing is said, either in this House or elsewhere, and certainly nothing should be done, that would in any way endanger the fabric of the court or cast any doubt or reflection on its service and usefulness to the community.
Indeed I welcome this Bill because I can see that it will improve the efficacy and usefulness of the court as it stands. I welcome it also because I believe that it is time the present machinery of the court and its modus operandi should be reviewed after some 22 or 23 years in practice and that we should take advantage of the defects which may have become apparent during that time and try to write into this Bill some type of wellthought-out idea or plan that will correct those deficiencies where they appear, and try to ensure that they do not occur in future.
One aspect of the court that I have always felt is very important was and still is that the court, this court in particular, should be seen to be absolutely independent. It is equally important, of course, that it must be seen to be an impartial body, and above all else that it is completely free from even the remotest possibility of any form of influence either from the Government or the Minister for Labour or anybody else.
Since the court moved over to its new headquarters, I have been in that building a number of times and one impression I have got—and this is purely an impression which I mention because it may perhaps help— from speaking to a number of people like myself using the court's machinery was that there may be a possible danger of the Labour Court itself becoming too closely identified with the Department of Labour, which is a comparatively new Department. Though I do not see an immediate solution to it, and I know perfectly well that the functions of the court are obviously of the deepest concern to the Department, it might be better if the court were housed independently in some other building other than that of the Department. I say that genuinely by way of a suggestion, and nothing else. I for one am perfectly satisfied that the court has never been influenced, and I have never seen even the slightest evidence that it has been influenced, but it is important that we should take care to make sure that no finger would ever be pointed at the court. I throw out this suggestion, for what it is worth, for that reason.
The Bill will commend itself to all sides of this House, and I do not propose to dwell any longer on the principles on which it rests, but merely to select a couple of things in connection with a few sections of it. Under section 2, the Minister is making provision for the expansion of the court, and, like Senator Dooge, my only question on this is whether he has gone far enough. I can also fully appreciate that as of this moment the Minister feels that he has gone quite far enough, and I could probably agree with him on that point, but I also feel that on this section he could well leave himself a little more room for even further expansion at some later date, because I believe that the new court, when it comes into being and starts to work along the lines on which it is being guided by this Bill, may well find that even the three sections provided for now will prove to be inadequate.
We have had experience in the past, as I am sure the Minister will agree, of disputes, some very urgent and important, where they have had to stand in the queue and wait for the court. We have had that more than once. Similarly we have also had, not frequently but on a number of occasions, the court criticised because of its failure or inability to issue recommendations within a reasonable time. Consequently if the court is now being expanded to cater for a lot more people than it has catered for in the past it would seem only fair and reasonable that we should take the opportunity here within the section to enable the Minister to expand the court further in the future.
Likewise, I should like to see more decentralisation. I think that there is an unanswerable case for one of the sections at least of the court to be based somewhere in the provinces, for instance, in Cork or Limerick, where it could deal with local disputes more promptly than it is in a position to do at the moment.
It is good to see that some provision is being made, even after a quarter of a century, for superannuation for the existing members of the court. I certainly will not criticise that section of the Bill or offer any further comment on it except to make one small point: I am not quite clear whether I am on sure ground here, but one of the original members of the court, a colleague of mine to whom I have already referred, the late Tom Johnston, gave a great deal of thought and a lot of service to this country in many capacities, and without decrying his efforts on the national scene I venture to say that his most valuable contribution to the country was in accepting membership of the original Labour Court when it was established in 1946, and the long years of service he gave to it subsequently. I believe I am right in saying that when Tom Johnson died there was no provision for superannuation, and we have to live with the unpleasant fact that this is so and that his widow is still alive. I strongly appeal to the Minister that, unless some provision is already somewhere in this Bill, which I cannot perceive, Mrs. Johnson should benefit and should not be forgotten.
Skimming roughly through the sections of the Bill, I should like to refer to section 8 which states that an investigation of a trade dispute by the court shall be conducted in private. May I say that the use of this word "shall" ought to be dropped. I should prefer to see it as "shall normally" or "may normally be conducted in private." I think that this is putting undue emphasis on the ability or the function of the court to hear most if not all cases in private, and I would suggest that the wording of the section might be looked at before the Committee Stage.
Senator Dooge has dealt with the major aspect of section 9 but there is one aspect which I do not think he referred to and it is this: now that the Civil Service organisations are not being brought directly under the court itself but provision is being made in this Bill for members of the court to become involved in the examination and remuneration problems and all the rest of it in Civil Service Conciliation and Arbitration schemes, this is a rather important point.
The point is that at the present time the Civil Service organisations of workers have a say in the selection of the chairman and they also have a right to nominate their own two representatives to reach Arbitration Board So far so good. Now, this Bill provides that in addition to the two representatives of the staff unions on the arbitration board, the arbitration board will be expanded to include both workers' and employers' representatives for the Labour Court. As far as I am aware, up to now the position has been that where agreement was not found possible on a particular case before the Civil Service Arbitration Board, the chairman had the right in fact to arrive at a decision and that decision became automatically binding on all parties.
Perhaps this is unlikely but it is conceivable and is a distinct possibility. We could well have a situation in which the two representatives of the Labour Court, employer and union, together with the management side representatives on the arbitration board, could outvote the remaining two union representatives. That would be fatal. That possibility could be completely ruled out by this Bill and I suggest that when amendments are being drawn up to the agreed arbitration scheme that some provision should be contained in those amendments to ensure that all decisions of the arbitration board should only be binding when the members are unanimous and if they are not unanimous that the ruling should still be left to the chairman of the court rather than to a vote of the members of the board.
This provision could be vital to the future of industrial relations and is something which the Minister should have a look at, not necessarily before this Bill is passed but in any amended regulations that may be made at civil service level for agreed arbitration or conciliation machinery.
Section 13 of this Bill deals with the appointment of a rights commissioner, as he is termed, by the Minister in the Bill. Personally, I welcome this innovation. I always regarded it as an extension of the present conciliation services provided by the court and I consider it to be very necessary. As a trade union offical I found myself on one occasion in a position in which my executive was willing and anxious to submit a certain question to arbitration. Our difficulty was that we could not get an arbitrator and I remember asking that the question of arbitration be solved by asking the Labour Court to appoint an arbitrator. However, when I went to the Labour Court, I discovered that no official of the court would be permitted to act as an arbitrator. Therefore, I consider the appointment of a rights commissioner as a very good idea and one way in which the difficulty I have pointed out can be limited in the future.
Most people do not realise the tremendous contribution made by the Labour Court through its conciliation service to the maintenance of industrial peace in this country during a long number of years. They have no conception of the amount of work done by the court every day of the year. Thousands of people go to the conciliation officers about whom we hear nothing and from my own experience and from the experience of practically every other trade unionist in the country, I consider the work done at conciliation to be even more useful than that which is done even by the court itself in full session.
During a period of 23 or 24 years I have had experience of various conciliation officers of the court. All of them are very good men and I am glad to have this opportunity of paying a tribute to them. I am glad, also, to have the opportunity of saying that the present man who up to recently was known as the chief conciliation officer has played an outstanding part in the industrial life of this country for a long number of years. If men of that calibre can be attracted to the service of the court then I can say without any hesitation that there is great hope for the solution of the problem of industrial relations in this country. I am glad the Minister has made provisions in the Bill for the employment of industrial relations officers. This is a profession for which very few people are suited. In assessing ability for this profession it is not book learning that counts but rather it is the ability to understand people and to understand their problems.
In so far as I can judge, this Bill does not make any provision for anything in the nature of a research unit. This is one type of machinery that is sadly lacking in this country. Some provision should have been made in the Bill for the setting up of this type of service. To my mind that should be a normal part of the function of the Labour Court and, in particular, of the Labour Court of the future. Perhaps if the Minister cannot do something about this in this Bill he may be able to make provision for it elsewhere.
In common with Professor Dooge, it is my opinion that far too much time has been allowed to elapse since the last Industrial Relations Act was passed. We should have amended legislation of this type at far more frequent intervals in the future particularly because of developments in industry and, indeed, outside it. We shall have to face up to the necessity for frequent revision of the conditions in which the Labour Court itself is expected to work. The court should not be looked upon by the employers, as it has been in the past, as a sort of smoke screen and something to hide behind which enables them to refuse to enter into meaningful discussions until the two parties have been through a painful process of elimination. I am glad that in future the court will be a much more authoritative body.
I regard the Bill, therefore, as a commendable effort to deal with at least an aspect of this vast, complex problem of industrial relations which is probably the most important of all the problems facing this country at the present time. Anything we can do in this House, or outside it for that matter, to eradicate some of the errors of the past or, for that matter, some of the weakness in this Bill, will be a real service both for the country and for every section of its citizens. I hope every section of the Bill will be thoroughly examined on its passage through this House and that it will be criticised constructively where necessary and amended where desirable. On behalf of the Labour Party I welcome the Bill and I welcome the Minister's patient but intelligent approach to at least an improvement of the problems the Bill proposes to deal with.
I understand we are taking the Second Reading of the Repeal of the ESB Act in conjunction with the Second Reading of the Industrial Relations Bill. I welcome the fact the ESB Bill is now being erased from the list of statutes of the Oireachtas. I think it is appropriate that that legislation should go by the board in conjunction with the introduction of the Industrial Relations Bill in the Seanad. I do not propose to go into the history of it in detail but I should like to recall that the individual who is no longer in a very key position, responsible originally for the introduction of this penal legislation, left a legacy which has caused tremendous disruption in industry generally throughout the country. This individual in the Dáil was advised on numerous occasions that repressive legislation would not work and could not be effective in present day conditions. In spite of that, against the advice of the majority of Members of the other House and against the advice of Congress and others outside, that legislation was enacted.
What do we find? As a result of it, the efficiency of reasonably good trade unions was damaged because of the inhibiting effect of this type of penal legislation. It made trade union officials, who are cautious people generally, still more cautions and gave the impression to the worker, the man who was there to represent them, that the trade union official was now being tied up by this legal Act of the Dáil with the result that the worker, the rank and file, went elsewhere to get his leadership. He went outside the trade union and formed what is now described as an unofficial group. Those unofficial groups were responsible for bringing an air of sanity into the field of industrial relations because no matter what this House or the other House thought of the legislation going through, and how efficient its enactment could be, when the temper of the worker is aroused the legislation can go to hell because he will have his rights.
We have the pathetic sight of a Minister of State applying reprehensive legislation against workers one day and the next day his colleagues sending up taxis to Mountjoy, bringing them cups of tea and bringing them home at 12 o'clock at night—all unofficial. I have heard a Senator in this House, who is a responsible man in the trade union, saying the courts' expediency is what counts. If that is the type of expediency which runs through industrial relations, I am afraid we are building on a very wrong platform, on a very bad foundation.
It has been said here and in the other House that there are people who want to legislate for many years ahead on a clear cut issue: "Let us get the workers into seven or eight unions like we had in Nazi Germany. let us have eight or ten unions. It is very efficient over there". We do not go to look at Yugolavia at all. We can look at the neighbouring country. We are told by the Minister for Labour that he does not think the Irish people would accept what takes place in Yugoslavia as a blueprint, but he feels we will accept what takes place in what is still Nazi Germany, to a great extent. I do not think so. I think there is a rapid change in the mentality of the people. The one thing we can be sure of today is that change is the dominant factor in our society.
Would the Senator say when the Minister said that? I have no recollection of it.
I have a recollection that Deputy Hillery took himself off to Ennis recently and gave his view that the Irish people would not accept the type of society where you have the workers' co-op. If I am wrong in regard to this I will withdraw it.
If I may interrupt the Senator, I did say I did not think the Irish people would accept the way of life in Yugoslavia. The Senator added to that further by saying that the Irish people would accept Nazi German conditions. I did not say that.
That is my interpretation of what the Minister was saying.
You seemed to say earlier that was what I actually said.
It is my interpretation.
It is not what I actually said.
I have my views on the situation in Germany. I have had my feelings about it for a number of years.
I am quite happy when the Senator gives his own interpretation but to give those beliefs as coming from me is a little unacceptable.
I am entitled to interpret what the Minister conveyed. He made comparisons and said that the system operating in Germany, where there is a limited number of unions, was one which should be considered here, but in his opinion there was no question at all of the Irish people accepting the type of industrial relationship which obtained in Yugoslavia. That is my interpretation of it. If the Minister dislikes the terms of the description I use of Germany—I do not accuse him of actually using that term: I am using it myself on his behalf—and suggests it does not suit the present time, that is his business.
I do not accept any responsibility for what the Senator is saying on my behalf.
The Senator admits he is deliberately misrepresenting the Minister.
No. I am stating what I believe to be the Minister's viewpoint.
The Senator is a trouble causer.
On a point of order, it is Senator Ó Maoláin who is the trouble causer at the moment.
Oh, no.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I think it is a reflection on the Chair to say there is any trouble at the moment.
I am not referring to the Chair. I am referring to the method by which Senator McQuillan adds on to what a person says, the Minister or otherwise, what the person never said and then puts an interpretation on it and pretends it is gospel truth. That is the impression which is given.
Can you not leave the Minister alone to handle it himself?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister has made it quite clear what he said on that particular occasion, and that must be accepted. If the Minister's views on any issue have been misinterpreted the Minister still has an opportunity to reply to it when concluding the debate.
Let me put it to you that I accept fully what the Minister says he said, but I want to put my interpretation on what is behind what he said and there is quite a difference, if Senator Ó Maoláin will allow me that right in this House.
will you allow me to put my interpretation on what you are saying?
You have the next hour, if you want to do so.
I will not have the next hour.
If you are not careful you will not get in at all.
I will not get in at all because I was about to suggest to the House that we finish this debate at 5.30 p.m. to enable us to take the Shipping Investment Grants Bill.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Leader of the House is seeking, on a point of order, to vary the order of the House. He is seeking to have the Shipping Bill taken at 5.30 p.m.
May I ask is this part of the row between the Minister for Transport and Power and the Minister for Labour? The Minister for Transport and Power sought to come in first today. Is he now trying to oust the Minister for Labour?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
There is a motion that the business originally ordered be varied to the effect that the Shipping Investment Grants Bill be taken at 5.30 p.m., if not earlier.
At the commencement of business it was suggested that we might adjourn early today. I asked whether we could take the Shipping Investment Grants Bill at a reasonable time before the adjournment. I had no objection to adjourning at 6 p.m. or 6.30 p.m.: I was anxious that we should take the Shipping Bill at 5.30 p.m. There is no question of anyone jumping in.
I understood that the Order of Business was agreed and that there was to be no alteration in it. I understood that we would stay on No. 2 on the Order Paper until 6.30 p.m.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The House is at all times in control of the order of Business. If the Senator is worried about the Order of Business it would be possible to put a question to the House on it.
We are entitled to know whether there is urgency about changing the business.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Leader of the House is trying to make more explicit what was implicit at an earlier stage.
Money is needed for investment for shipping. That is the reason for putting this Bill now.
Senator Ó Maoláin wants it through now?
Yes. We can adjourn this debate until next week.
I have no objection so long as I know what is happening
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Has the House agreed that the Shipping Investment Grants Bill will be taken at 5.30?
Yes.
To get back now to the interpretation which has been placed on the Minister's idea of what is good in industrial relations at the present time, I should like to say at this stage, with regard to the setting up of the straitjacket which would be imposed on the community for a period of years, that I believe it would only lead to trouble and possibly to disaster between the worker and employer The uncertainty which has been referred to by other speakers here is something which will be with us for years. There is no longer any certainty in this life or in its systems, ideas or existing structures. There is a search and an inquiry going on all the time. There is a change. Any attempt at legislation to hold the position as it is now would, in my opinion, be the height of foolishness.
The Minister has stated that there is suspicion on the part of workers at the Government's attempt to improve the situation in regard to industrial relations. It would appear that the Minister is surprised and hurt that more confidence is not shown in the Government Such an attitude on the part of the Minister displays a lack of reality. The Government should not believe that the worker should have confidence at the present time in its approach to the welfare of the worker. I am talking about Governments as I have known them for years past. The biggest employer in this State today is the Government. When we consider their approach to industrial relations and the approach of their appointees, is it any wonder that we have trouble with regard to general enterprise and industry?
There are three or four major concerns such as CIE, the ESB and the Post Office which between them employ vast numbers of workers. It cannot be denied that the standard of industrial relations in these State sectors is worse than those in any other industrial sector of the community. I noted some of the Minister's comments on the workers. He referred to the ESB and spoke of "the ESB and its employees." The Minister's statement opens a window to his mind because it would appear that he looks on the ESB as some kind of industrial concern run on the lines of, perhaps, Clerys or Waterford Glass Limited. The ESB belongs to the people.
It belongs to the board.
The ESB are run by employees of the people through the Government. They are no more employers than a workers' co-operative should be, because the people who man the administrative end of the ESB should be looked on as workers in that capacity and as administrators, but not as bosses. It is very hard to get this point across to the people who have spent many years looking at the picture from the other side. We must get it into the heads of people who are put on these State boards that they are workers and not just industrialists taken in from outside and given a special safe position where they can act in an arrogant way with their fellow employees at the bottom of the scale.
This is industrial relations in its simplest form. The system of communication and of getting to know and understand fellow workers does not exist in the higher echelons of these semi-State concerns. There is more concern now among private enterprise in the industrial world in looking after their workers. They are paternalistic towards them. They are aware of the need of looking after the workers and of this trend of regarding a worker as a human being. In outside industry a boss might perhaps go along to the "local" for a drink with the boys and feel that he is giving the employees a feeling of sharing in the welfare of the factory. That feeling is there in the private sector for the good reason that profits are involved and the future of the firm is at stake. Because of the changed viewpoint of the worker in private industry, the employer has been forced to modernise his attitude and to become more civilised in his approach towards the employee. There is no such incentive on the part of those who are in the upper echelons of State or semi-State concerns.
The private motive does not arise there in the sense that the firm is going to be out the door if the worker does not play ball. Consequently, those in charge in the ESB, CIE and elsewhere are quite ready, at the drop of a hat, to impose sanctions to achieve their will and that is what we have had all along the line. No private employer would dare to take the action that was taken by Deputy Childers in his capacity as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and in his capacity as Minister for Transport and Power because his concern would go to rack and ruin. These people who are put in as nominees of a particular Minister have no conception of what true staff relations are like. They proceed in the out-dated style to which they were used before they are brought in and given these major jobs in State and semi-State concerns.
I have not the slightest doubt that the workers' suspicions of Government interference in regard to their pay packets or their conditions of work are justified.
The Minister, as I understand it, has now set up two bodies to examine the pay packets of the lower paid workers and the lower paid civil servants. In this field I presume he expects to have the confidence of the lower paid clerical workers in the membership of these particular committees which he has established. The membership of these committees are pets of the Government; their concern is the status quo. It is an extraordinary situation that you have this plea: Let's do something about the lower paid worker; it is wrong. It is agreed he has not got a fair deal but why should this appeal be made in the form of charity. I see nothing wrong with a down to earth fight, if necessary, to improve the conditions of the lower paid worker instead of this type of behind the scenes negotiation and this pretence that there is an investigation into his work going on.
Senator Crowley put his finger on the major item missing in this proposed legislation: the facilities for research and examination of the work content performed by people who are now described as lower paid workers. I could give one example here of what is described as a lower paid worker and how he will be treated under this new examination which is to be carried out. I refer to the postmaster in the public service who is responsible for 24 post offices, a big exchange and the dispersement of thousands of pounds per week in social welfare benefits. In any provincial town you will find that the postmaster has a smaller pay than an unpromoted bank clerk in the same town, who has no responsibility except to buy his set of golf clubs, get time off and hope for plenty of sunshine so that he can go out and play. Twenty-five years ago the post office clerk, never mind the postmaster, and the bank clerk had the same pay, but now the post office clerk has less than half of what comparable outside groups are earning. The Minister is setting up a committee to investigate increased salaries without carrying out any research into the actual work content.
If the Minister wants to avoid major troubles before it is too late he should bring over the Pay Research Unit, which was employed by the Quinn Tribunal to examine the work content of the ESB clerical groups, to examine the work content of one public service, namely, the post office. It is no good talking to a man and saying: The State cannot afford to give you this if the work he is doing compares in skill and standard to other groups which are earning one and a half to two times his salary. I do not want to use this Bill as a vehicle in bringing to light particular injustices in the situation and I will limit myself as much as possible.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am glad to hear that from the Senator.
At the same time the Chair will appreciate that there is no better way of dealing with any Bill than to be able to give examples of how necessary it is to alter the situation and how an ounce of example is worth a ton of exhortation.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator has administered more than an ounce.
The Senator when he was down here got his little spoke in and I hope because he is in a privileged position that he does not expect me to wait until I am where he is before doing so because that will be a long wait.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am glad the Senator is not going into any more detail than those who spoke earlier in the debate.
The Bill has been described as a limited step forward. Perhaps it is. There are certainly many good provisions in the Bill, but again I, personally, am suspicious of attempts at legislation—just like the majority of workers outside are—which are slanted all the time in favour of the employer. It is all very fine to say that if there is an agreement reached it is binding and that the employer who breaks the agreement, the same as the trade union, can be penalised. On the face of it that looks as if justice has been exercised and that the employer will be penalised just the same as the worker.
One thing we all forget is that if the worker does not carry out his agreement he is going to suffer. He will be penalised through the provisions of the Bill itself, but if the employer fails to carry out the provisions how is he going to suffer? It may be said that the fine imposed on him is going to be a penalty. My belief as far as the employer is concerned is that he would be wise to accept whatever recommendation is made by the Labour Court and abide by it because within twenty-four hours of implementing an agreement which specifically affects wages or conditions he can up the price of his commodity and he wins, the worker loses and society, in the person of the consumer, loses also, so that though there may be an advance on the one front in this, you are civilising the present position, until the prices at the other end are controlled. I do not think that this will have any great impact as far as the community is concerned.
All down the years—and I am sure that experienced trade union people will agree with me in this—when they have succeeded after a costly fight in obtaining a just increase for their members within a particular industry, within a week the cost of the article made by the particular factory shoots up so that the industrialist is not at the losing end of the stick—it is the worker and the community in general. In the private enterprise jungle we live in, unless there is a restriction placed on that employer after an agreement on wages is made as far as a price increase in the commodity is concerned this legislation is ineffective. That is why apart altogether from the research unit which has been referred to as missing you must also have the question of price brought in under this legislation. The employer is going to use the existing machinery but it entails an increase in prices of commodities if he is beaten in the Labour Court.
My experience, and I am sure that many other people are in the same boat, is that in the last few years there has been a fantastic increase in everything from a thimble to an anchor. The Minister and the Government may say that there has only been a certain increase in items which go to make up the cost of living and we could have many discussions on what should compose the list of articles making up the cost of living but even within the last month I saw a good example of an item as far as a man is concerned—to get your suit sponged and pressed overnight the cost went up from 9d to 1s. As far as these manufacturers, industrialists and wholesalers are concerned every opportunity they get in the chaos or the confusion that follows a pay rise they have slipped up their price tags on every possible item they can get away with. I am told that there is supposed to be some group working in the Department of Industry and Commerce to keep an eye on prices. It may be that they watch the price of flour or the loaf or something else but they are not in a position under present circumstances to put a halt to the activity of these people when they raise the cost of living so much after a just pay increase has been given to the workers. It is one use of the big stick. Indeed now we hear prominent speakers going around the country and saying that this idea of giving an increase in wages will mean a further increase in the price of the goods. Why should it? Does the employer, the manufacturer, want complete freedom from investigation into his prices? He wants at this stage a restriction on the worker, and discipline as far as wage demands are concerned, but the same employer does not want restriction at all when it comes to putting another penny or twopence on an article at the wholesale or construction stage of his commodity.
Does the Senator think that wages should keep going up and up and nothing happen?
I do not think that prices should keep going up. It is a matter of one chasing the other. Wages must go up and the demand must be there from the worker for the money to pay for the commodities. If the cost of the commodity is going to be allowed to go up indiscriminately then the worker must follow it by increases in wages. I think that it is logical that a halt must be called to increases in prices. The argument put at this stage is that you are restricting private enterprise and you are going to stop the drive and the energy displayed by our young boards of directors but I do not think so. I do not think they should have that outlook at all. Further, I believe myself that while I believe the Minister personally to be sincere in his intentions as far as this Bill is concerned, the key to a lot of the trouble lies in the lack of control exercised on the finished item or on the price of the goods which the manufacturer sells.
In so far as the Bill deals with industrial relations outside of wages there is a lot to be said for its provisions. In that regard I would like to comment on the Minister's new machinery to which he refers in his statement for the settlement of certain kinds of disputes. They are disputes which refer to discipline and dismissals. The Minister said that many of these find their way to the Labour Court. I can assure the Minister that many of these do not find their way to the Labour Court or any other form of court, but if it means now that the provisions of this Bill will help to improve the conditions as far as the worker is concerned in all categories—not alone in the industrial field but in state and semi-State bodies and the Government service—then good work has been done by the Minister. I refer, of course, to the appointment of rights commissioners who may be a form of industrial ombudsman whose job would be to deal fearlessly with injustices where-ever they are found. Unless this Bill embraces all workers, I think the Minister is losing out very much on this appointment. It is restricting the basis far too much if he is going to say that because there is an objection at this stage by certain people to utilise the Labour Court, that because they do not utilise the court the workers in the State body or in the Civil Service should therefore be deprived of the right of access to an industrial ombudsman. I wonder would the Minister comment on that when he is replying? Does it mean that workers who at the present time are part of C and A will still be deprived of access to a grievance officer or an ombudsman on the lines suggested by the Minister in this Bill?
I know that he is hoping to get agreement from Civil Service groups who have C and A machinery at their disposal to come in and take part in the Labour Court. I may say too that in the limited experience I have of the trade union movement from inside a minority group that the feeling of many people with whom I have contact is that the Labour Court is the proper place for all and I think that the view expressed in the other House by speakers for the Opposition was that the Labour Court should be open to everybody in this State. The more bodies we have, the more arbitrators we have, the more confusion we shall have. There is no question that because you have a big number of arbitrators looking after different groups you have a pause and a delay in the implementation of recommendations and that, in turn, leads to further dissatisfaction. By the time that one group has got through with the goodwill of the arbitrator the next group that got through earlier is looking for a further round. I see nothing wrong at all about access to the Labour Court for the Civil Service associations. The Minister has stated, and I hope he will not say again that I am misquoting him, that a small minority are living in the past and that they rely on trade union ideas and attitudes which may have been appropriate for an age that is now past.
When referring to that group does the Minister mean that they are the group who wish to hang on to an outmoded scheme? Perhaps that is the group he is referring to when he says they are in the minority. There is something wrong somewhere because if they are in the minority they are representative of a huge percentage of the lower paid workers in the State and semi-State concerns. They have refused point blank to accept the Minister's suggestion to participate in the Labour Court. They would appear to be that group whom the Minister refers to as living in the past. The Minister should understand that many of the spokesman for existing Civil Service associations, excellent men though they may be, they are those most anxious to hold on to the system that they know best. That is human nature. The rank and file in this public service are not aware of the changes which the Minister proposes to bring in and of the advantages that would accrue to them in the event of such changes being accepted.
Debate adjourned.