Cavan): I thank the Senators for the welcome extended to the Bill and their general acceptance of it. I would also like to apologise to the Seanad for my trips to the other House during the debate. I am sure Senators, being familiar with the importance of a vote—even one vote in a democratic system is important— will appreciate the necessity for my obeying the Division bells. As has been said throughout this discussion, the object of this Bill is to facilitate the amalgamation of trade unions and the rationalisation of the trade union movement within the country.
It has been admitted by all that there are too many trade unions here at the present time, having regard to our population and the membership of the trade unions, which is less than 500,000. It was pointed out by the Minister in his opening speech, and accepted by Members of the House, that many problems and a significant proportion of the disputes which arose in the last comparatively short time, are due to inter-union disputes within the same firm. In this city within the last year we had a classical example of the absurdity of such disputes.
This is an enabling Bill. There is nothing in it to pressurise or compel unions to amalgamate or enter into agreement with each other. It certainly facilitates amalgamation. Because it does that, it has been welcomed by everyone who spoke.
Anything that will lead to better and more orderly industrial relations and tend to eliminate disputes between the management and employees, is in the interests of the management, the work force, of the country and the economy. This Bill has been accepted very generously in principle by the Seanad. Some Senators expressed reservations or fears in regard to some sections. When the Bill is gone into in Committee and the various sections are thrashed out and discussed, the Seanad will be satisfied that many, if not all, of their fears are unfounded.
I would like just to deal with some points Senators have raised in the course of the debate. The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Lenihan, welcomed the Bill. His only reservation was on the lines of "anything you can do we could do better", but in general, he accepted the Bill. On the question of postal votes, he felt every member of the trade union concerned should be given an opportunity to vote. Section (3) (1) (b) lays down that every member of the unions concerned will be given reasonable facilities to vote. I am satisfied that that in many cases will entail resorting to postal votes. Therefore, I do not think the Senator need be worried on that score.
He was also concerned because the Minister for Industry and Commerce comes into the Bill. If he does, it is in a very indirect way and only because the Registrar of Friendly Societies operates under the Department of Industry and Commerce and the machinery, established for many years in the Registrar of Friendly Societies' office, is being used to implement some of the provisions of the Bill, to vet and approve the agreements which will be drawn up to carry out amalgamation. Indeed, the Registrar of Friendly Societies covers a fairly large field in the course of his operations.
The machinery is there and that is why it is being used. If we were to set up alternative machinery, it would probably lead to delays and, perhaps, more expense. It was natural that Senator Lenihan would raise the subject of the political fund and that he would make the obvious Opposition political point that Members of the unions were in some way obliged to subscribe to the political fund of the take-over union.
The Bill is signed in regard to contribution to the political fund. It proposes to accept the law as it is at present. There will, of course, I understand be a necessity for the new union, or the amalgamated union, to decide to contribute to the political fund. Every member of the new union, as I call it, will in the future, as in the past, have the opportunity of opting out, or saying that he does not want to contribute to the political fund, if that is the way he feels about it. I do not think that there is any departure from the present law which has worked very well in the trade union code. I repeat there is nothing of a compulsory nature here. Anybody who contributes to the political fund, does so of his own free will. There is no change in the law in that respect.
Senator Kennedy raised the question of the right to vote. He said he would be happier if a member's right to vote was confined to members in benefit. Section 1 (2) reads:
For the purposes of sections 3 and 4 "member", in relation to a trade union, means a member for the time being entitled to any benefits provided out of the funds of a trade union but, where the rules of a trade union specify the persons (or class of persons) entitled to vote on a particular matter (or class of matter), "member" means those persons.
That probably covers the point raised by Senator Kennedy. If he is not completely satisfied, and as this is a Committee Stage point he can discuss it when the Bill reaches that stage.
Senator Kennedy also asked what matters would be covered by the grants to be paid under section 14. I am told that section 14 is wide enough, and is intended to be wide enough, to cover a fairly wide range of grants for exceptional expenses incurred in the amalgamation or transfer of engagements. It is intended that these expenses would cover legal, consultancy, printing and posting expenses and also compensation for redundancy. That point was raised by a number of Senators. I am advised that the Bill is wide enough to cover all those items, none of the Senators need have any worry. I think it will be agreed that this is generous. Senator Butler also asked if it would cover expenses incurred in an abortive effort to amalgamate. My understanding is that it is wide enough to cover such an effort.
Senator Kennedy also inquired what power the Irish branches of British-based unions would have under the Bill. The powers are set out in section 16 (2), which was referred to by Senator Horgan and others. The intention is that there will be a committee of management composed of people resident in the island of Ireland. This committee will be:
...empowered by the rules of that trade union to make decisions in matters of an industrial or political nature which arise out of and are in connection with the economic or political condition of the State or Northern Ireland, are of direct concern to members of the trade union resident in the State or Northern Ireland and do not effect members not so resident.
I understand that subsection is taken verbatim from the constitution of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.
Senator Cowen was concerned about redundant officials of smaller unions. He was anxious that they should be re-employed by the continuing or new union. The question of their re-employment must be a matter for negotiation during the negotiations for amalgamation. The Senator can be assured that, if these officers become redundant and are not employed by the continuing union, they are provided for in the section which enables the Minister to make grants towards expenses.
Senator Cowen was also concerned about farm labourers. The Seanad may know that the Minister for Labour is in consultation with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries at the moment on the question of establishing a joint labour committee to cater for these workers, instead of the existing Agricultural Wages Board. These negotiations have been going on for some time. The question of the unionisation of agricultural workers is a matter for the workers and their unions who cater for them or are prepared to cater for them. There are more difficulties here than there might be in the ordinary cases because agricultural workers are scattered throughout the country in isolated places. At any rate, the object of this Bill is not to compel anybody to become or to prohibit anybody from being a member of a union. This is simply an enabling Bill dealing mainly with the amalgamation of unions and it would not be proper to include that matter raised by the Senator.
I listened with considerable interest to Senator Harte's contribution on the trade union, the objects of the trade union movement and particularly its development, the part it played in its early years and the new and much wider role it plays now. I share the Senator's hopes for the Bill. I am hopeful that the positive advantages it confers on trade unions will be availed of.
Senator Dolan gave the Bill a céad míle fáilte and had some very complimentary things to say. He, like some other Senators, was concerned about officials becoming redundant as a result of amalgamation. I hope I have put the minds of Senators at ease. I also hope I have made it clear that under section 14 grants can be made to enable the smaller union of the amalgamation to make redundancy payments.
Senator Butler had some doubts about the wisdom of creating larger unions. He seemed to think that by doing so the end result would not be so good. He expressed fears that if the larger unions were too large they would be difficult and that this might lead to members not getting service as good as they are getting now. In my view there is considerably more merit in the larger union. A larger union can afford to be strong when demanding what it considers to be the reasonable rights of its members. It is also strong enough not to be pressurised by members into making unreasonable demands or entering into inter-union disputes. I hope I am making myself clear on this point. A union that is weak or small may find that in order to establish itself, and attract more members and continue in existence it may have to be unreasonable. Therefore there is a lot to be said for fewer and stronger unions, the kind of union that would give a better service to its members and be in a better position to press reasonable demands on employers and so we will have fewer "wild cat" or unreasonable strikes. The end result will be in the interests of employees, employers and the economy in general. The bigger unions will have more expertise and more machinery at their disposal for efficiency communicating with their members and keeping themselves up to date with modern trends and requirements.
Senator Butler also inquired whether the Irish executives of the British-based unions should be elected by the Irish membership of the unions concerned in order to ensure that the executive is composed of Irish people.
Under section 16 (2) of the Bill every member of the executive of a British trade union must be resident in the State or in Northern Ireland. Persons so resident would be clearly sensitive to the situation in Ireland. A British union operating here and soliciting the goodwill of the work force in this country is much more likely to recruit or appoint an Irish executive than British personnel. This is something the Senator can refer to again on the Committee Stage, but I certainly think that the likelihood is that membership of the Irish committee will consist of Irish nationals.
Senator Butler seemed to fear compulsory voting. There is nothing in the Bill, good, bad or indifferent to make voting compulsory. Indeed, the opposite is the case. As the law stands at the moment, unless 50 per cent of the membership of a trade union vote on an issue like this, no decision can be taken. If more than 50 per cent of the membership are so uninterested as to fail to vote, then there is stalemate and no decision on amalgamation can be taken. Further, it is necessary under existing law that 50 per cent vote number one and that at least more than 20 per cent vote in favour of the proposal to amalgamate than against. Under the proposals in the Bill only a simple majority is necessary and there is no stipulation as to what percentage of the membership should vote. The Bill provides that adequate notice must be given to the members so that they will know the proposals that are going before the meeting or are going before the trade union and they will have every opportunity of voting on them.
With regard to the question raised by Senator Butler, I can assure him that the grants are available in respect of efforts to amalgamate which do not turn out to be successful.
I was rather interested in the point put forward by Senator Horgan when he feared that the simple majority provision introduced into the Bill might put power in the hands of an activist élite. I do not think he need be afraid of that because the Bill will ensure that every members will receive notice of the vote. If a member declines to vote, his action might reasonably be construed as indifference. The provisions of the Bill set out that each member must be given notice of the proposal and given an opportunity to express his views on it through the ballot. It is unreasonable to say that a simple majority is not enough. I do not accept the Senator's fears that this will put power into the hands of an activist élite. At the moment the sleeping majority of the unions who do not think it worth their while to find out what is going on, come to a meeting or vote, have power by default to obstruct a worthwhile development in the trade union movement. All that is necessary to obstruct a proposal to amalgamate or to restructure a union is that 51 per cent be so disinterested in the working of their own union that they do not bother to vote. That is a bad thing. The procedure in the Bill, which lays it down that a simple majority is sufficient provided every member of the union who can be contacted is given notice of the proposal and given an opportunity to vote, is a good one.
What I have said deals with practically every point that was raised in this Second Stage debate. I again want to thank the Senators for their contributions and for the manner in which they received the Bill. This is my second visit to the Seanad as a Minister and I must say I enjoyed it.
