Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Feb 1975

Vol. 79 No. 6

Trade Union Bill, 1974: Second Stage.

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

Minister for Labour (Mr. M. O'Leary)

I must apologise that the situation I am left in is that I have been in the Dáil all morning and such is the diligence of the refurbished Front Bench of the Opposition that I have been delayed somewhat longer there on the provisions of that legislation and I must return to that House at 4 o'clock for the continuation of the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Bill, 1974.

The Bill that I bring before the House here is an important one. It brings change in an area where there has been too little change, legislatively at any rate, for a considerable time. There is general acceptance that there are too many trade unions in Ireland. This has long been acknowledged by union leaders and others concerned with the problem. We have 400,000 workers organised in roughly 100 unions. These figures become even more alarming when one considers that almost one quarter of these workers are organised in six major unions, which leaves the rest in the remaining 90 or so unions.

Multiplicity of trade unions in this country has created problems in industrial relations for both employers and unions. Where a union has a small number of members it becomes impossible for it to provide the proper range of services necessary to promote members' interests in the most effective manner. Of course a complication is the growing sophistication of industry and technology. This means that if a union is to negotiate its way through job evaluation schemes and so on—the host of matters a union must concern itself with nowadays— it must have a wide range of professional and technical skills in the staff available to it.

In these circumstances unions working with fewer than 1,000 members would find it very difficult to provide such staff. Where a number of different unions represent workers of the same occupation or grade in a firm, negotiations can be very difficult and protracted, and worthwhile changes may be held up as a result of this multiplicity of unions. Of course it has led to particular inter-union disputes and the 1973 annual report of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions shows that their disputes committee had to deal with 23 inter-union disputes. These disputes seem almost inevitable when one considers the large number of unions catering for workers in many of our national companies. There are, for example, 21 unions representing 11,000 workers in the ESB, 33 representing 21,000 in CIE, 18 representing 2,200 in Guinness' and 12 representing 700 in Gouldings.

The shortcomings of our trade union structure have been brought into sharper relief by the events consequent on our entry to the European Economic Community. Many of the smaller unions find themselves at a disadvantage in endeavouring to keep abreast of the rather complex issues of interest to workers arising from our accession to the EEC.

The trade union movement itself is keenly aware of the need for the rationalisation of the present trade union structure. Recently, at the invitation of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, an eminent expert from the International Labour Office began a preliminary study of the problems created by the multiplicity of trade unions in Ireland. I am hopeful that this preliminary study will have the effect of stimulating moves towards rationalisation.

The existing legislation on amalgamations is contained in a number of pre-1920 Acts. The provisions of this legislation were such as to act as a positive disincentive to amalgamation. The vagueness of this old legislation has undoubtedly contributed a very large legal deterrent to anybody thinking in those directions. Senators will be aware of the legal battle which delayed the formation of the NEETU some years ago. I hope that, as a result of the enactment of this Bill, similar difficulties will be avoided in the future.

The purpose simply stated, of the Bill is to facilitate amalgamations between trade unions. It will do this by providing clear-cut procedures for amalgamations and for the transfer of engagements. It also provides for financial assistance from public funds towards the expenses involved.

Under the Bill an instrument of amalgamation must be prepared. This instrument will be examined by the Registrar of Friendly Societies and if it satisfies the requirements of the Act and regulations to be made under the Act it will be approved by the Registrar. A written secret ballot on the instrument of amalgamation, as approved by the registrar, must also be arranged and every member of the union must be entitled to vote freely at this ballot. At least seven days before the ballot is held the members of the trade union must receive notice in writing of the ballot and this notice must again be in a form approved by the registrar. If the instrument of amalgamation is approved as a result of the ballot, the next step is to have the instrument registered by the registrar before the amalgamation can take effect.

The Bill makes provisions for transfers of engagements between trade unions. By that we mean one union transferring its membership to another union without a new trade union being formed in the process. At present there is no legislation in this country governing such transfers. While the absence of such legislation does not make transfers impossible, it leaves very much at large how such transfers should be effected. This Bill provides that in the case of a transfer of engagements a procedure somewhat similar to that provided for in the case of amalgamation shall be followed by the transferor union. In this way the interests of the members of the transferor union will be adequately safeguarded.

These new procedures governing amalgamations and transfers of engagements which will be supervised by the Registrar of Friendly Societies are aimed at eliminating grounds for disputes in regard to the validity of amalgamations or transfers and at safeguarding the interests of the members involved.

Under existing legislation if two or more trade unions wish to amalgamate at least 50 per cent of the members of each of the unions must vote on the proposal to amalgamate and the vote of those in favour must exceed those against by 20 per cent or more. This provision places a very difficult burden on trade unions in that it can be almost impossible to secure a 50 per cent turnout of workers even where critical issues such as wage negotiations are being discussed. The Bill proposes to replace this rather difficult requirement by providing that a simple majority of those voting in favour of amalgamation or transfer of engagements will be sufficient to allow an amalgamation or transfer to take place.

In order to simplify matters still further, the Bill contains a provision whereby a committee of management or other governing body of a transferee union, that is the union accepting the engagements, will be given power to alter the rules of the union to enable it accept a transfer of engagements. However the Bill also provides that this power will not apply where a union adopts rules specifically excluding the operation of this provision.

Under existing trade union legislation no time limit is specified within which a complaint against an amalgamation or transfer of engagements may be lodged by members of the trade unions involved.

The Bill provides in this regard that the registrar would have power to deal with complaints in regard to amalgamations or transfers based on certain specified grounds and any such complaints will have to be lodged with him within six weeks of the application for the registration of the instrument of amalgamation or transfer. If the complaint is substantiated, the registrar will make an order stating what must be done before he will consider an application to register the instrument.

The Schedule to the Bill sets out the powers proposed for the Registrar of Friendly Societies in connection with the hearing of complaints. These powers include power to require the attendance of witnesses or of any trade union officials concerned, the production of documents and so on.

Under existing arrangements, legal difficulties can arise in regard to the transfer of property held by amalgamating unions. I have therefore made provision in the Bill whereby the property of amalgamating unions may pass without any conveyance or assignment to the new union. The property would be vested in the appropriate trustees. The Bill also enables any changes in the ownership of registered trade union property consequent on an amalgamation or transfer of engagements to be recorded under the Registration of Title Act, 1964, with a minimum of difficulty.

The Bill makes provision whereby the Minister for Industry and Commerce may, with the consent of the Minister for Labour, make regulations for carrying the Act into effect. These regulation will cover such matters as applications to the registrar, registration of documents and so on.

I have had discussions with a number of trade unions which are at present contemplating amalgamations and are taking steps in that direction. I have therefore made provision in the Bill that, where steps have already been taken by trade unions with a view to amalgamation before the Bill becomes law, they may proceed as if the Act had not become law or, alternatively, the amalgamation may be completed under the provision of the new Act. Finally there is the question of grants. My intention is that no trade union should be discouraged or prevented from considering amalagamations or transfers of engagements because of the costs involved, which in some cases could be considerable.

The Bill therefore includes a provision which will enable me, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to make grants available towards exceptional expenditure necessarily incurred by trade unions in connection with amalgamations.

A number of amendments were moved to the Bill during its passage through the Dáil. The most siginificant is that relating to the position of British-based unions which operate in this country. There are at present 18 such unions in Ireland with a combined thirty-two county membership of 170,000. These would increase the cost of engaging appropriate consulting services, for example. The amendment now forms section 15 of the Bill, which provides that a British-based union may not hold or be granted a negotiation licence unless it has an executive resident in the State or Northern Ireland with power to take decisions over a wide range of matters. The provisions of this section will not come into operation in the case of British-based unions which already hold negotiation licences until such time as I fix by order. Sufficient time will be afforded to British-based unions to amend their rules to meet the requirements of the section. Basically, all this section does is to ensure that Irish trade unionists have a say in the management of their own affairs in this island, North and South.

The Bill will not force amalagmation on any union which feels that its members' interests would be best served by the retention of its own separate identity. I would hope however that the Bill will act as a stimulus towards rationalisation. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Lenihan

The groundwork for this Bill was laid by the previous Government and this Government in very close consultation with the trade union movement. Broadly speaking the Bill is acceptable to our group in principle. There are a number of details on which we propose to put down amendments on Committee Stage. I am giving advance warning that we do not propose to plan Committee Stage today. So far as we are concerned we would like to see Committee Stage on a future occasion when we can consider amendments that may improve the Bill in a practical way.

It has been quite evident for some years that the multiplicity of trade unions, more particularly in the large organisations to which the Minister has referred, has not been helpful, to put it mildly, in securing industrial peace, and in general pursuing the legitimate claims of workers vis-á-vis employers. The trade unionists themselves and the public generally have been the main sufferers as far as inter-union disputes have been concerned on a number of occasions. The provisions in the Bill for approved procedures facilitating amalgamation and transfers of engagements are to be welcomed. Heretofore, the basic problem was the procedure involved in amalgamation or transfer and the very archaic voting procedures that have existed and to which the Minister referred. The fact that up to 50 per cent of the members had to vote and there had to be a 20 per cent majority was an inhibiting factor in getting agreement. What is now proposed—a regularised system of election, with a majority maintaining, and a proper balloting procedure under the supervision of the Registrar of Friendly Societies—makes sense.

There is the question of allowing the individual member to have the choice of a postal vote. It may be incorporated by way of regulation by a trade union involved in amalgamation or transfer. We would like to see that being the right of the individual trade unionist himself or herself. By reason of the scattered nature of many employments we feel this should reside elementary right which should reside with the individual trade unionist. We will be moving an amendment on those lines on Committee Stage.

The provision for grants to facilitate amalgamations and transfers is welcomed. I know that the trade union movement at Congress have been pushing for this for some time. One amendment which the Fianna Fáil Party moved in the Dáil and which is now being adopted by the Minister on Committee Stage is one which we pushed very strongly. I am glad the Minister accepted that amendment which now forms section 16 of the Bill and which makes it mandatory that, in regard to an outside-based union, before it can obtain a negotiating licence for the purposes of the Trade Union Acts, there must be a committee of management or other controlling authority of which every member now under this section must be resident in the State or in Northern Ireland. That is a very important departure which the Fianna Fáil Party moved in the Dáil and is an improvement on the Bill as it originally stood on Second Stage.

Along with the fragmentation and multiplicity of trade unions, I say quite bluntly that the other main disturbing feature in our industrial life has been the existence of British-based unions. We are dealing with the multiplicity and fragmentation of trade unions in this Bill. We have taken the first practical step to deal with the other weakness in our trade union structure by ensuring that, if there are to be amalgamations or transfers of the nature envisaged in this Bill, such can only be negotiated by a British-based union. It will primarily be a British-based union that will be involved in this sort of procedure. A British-based union must have a committee of management here. Every member of it must be a resident in this country before any such amalgamation or transfer takes place. Otherwise we could easily have had the situation where a British-based union without any base here in the form of management committee or controlling authority could proceed to engage in amalgamations and transfers and, to put it bluntly, embark upon a campaign of gobbling up Irish-based unions. That is the first shot in this battle that I hope will be pursued actively by Congress, by the large Irish-based trade unions that have influence, by Irish trade unionists generally. I hope they get every facility and help from whatever Government are in power to ensure that we gradually erode and finally end control that has existed here to the detriment of our economy. It has had a deleterious effect on our economy and has induced into the Irish trade union movement a spirit of class warfare that is not part of the tradition of the Irish trade union movement itself and the Irish labour movement generally.

There are a number of other matters in the Bill which will involve Committee Stage amendments. I do not like this business of having two Ministers and two Departments involved in the administration of the Bill. I appreciate the difficulties of the Registrar of Friendly Societies within the control of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It is unsatisfactory in a Bill of this kind that you have the Minister for Industry and Commerce and one of his subsidiary bodies supervising the electoral procedures that are proposed under this Bill and which, of course, will be largely a matter for the Minister for Labour. I realise that this would involve a lot of redrafting of the legislation but, candidly, I would be happier if this procedure of amalgamation and transfer was directly within the ambit of the Labour Court under the Minister for Labour rather than have it as is proposed here, dealt with by the Registrar of Friendly Societies under another Minister in a separate Department. It could give rise to confusion in the future. I appreciate that it might have presented a very difficult drafting problem. Again, this is a matter we will be looking at with a view to possible amendments on Committee Stage.

There is one matter which has political undertones, and it is the only one. It is a matter not just of politics but of individual right. It is the question of opting in or out of the political fund.

We put down an amendment in the other House on this aspect which went to a vote on the First Stage and was rejected. We propose to put down an amendment again on Committee Stage on this aspect. What we propose is that, in the case of any such amalgamation or transfer, if the smaller union to the amalgamation or transfer does not have a political fund under their rules and mergers with a larger union that has a political fund, the smaller union should not be coerced by reason of their amalgamation to have a political fund. We feel that this is a reasonable proposal.

I know it has political connotations as far as the Labour Party are concerned, but I am thinking in terms of the freedom and liberty of the individual trade unionists. If a smaller trade union has not imposed on it this obligation to discharge to the political fund of the Labour Party, which is what it means, I do not see why in the event of amalgamation or transfer that union and its individual members should be forced to contribute to a political fund to which heretofore they had not contributed.

What will be proposed in our amendment and what was proposed in the other House is that in that case:

The members of an amalgamating trade union which has not got a political fund shall, upon becoming members of an amalgamated union with such a fund, be deemed to have opted out of such fund.

In other words, it is perfectly equitable that, if they had not been paying into such a fund, then these members, on amalgamation with a larger trade union, shall be deemed to preserve their present position and shall be deemed to have opted out of a contribution to a political fund. If they decide democratically, on becoming members of a larger union, to opt for a contribution to the political fund, this can be done by individual members.

If they have not heretofore contributed to a political fund they should not be forced to pay arbitrarily, without any choice in the matter, towards a political fund. I am not suggesting that they should not contribute to a political fund if that is their democratic decision. If they have not contributed to a political fund heretofore, then that position should be allowed to continue, and on amalgamation or transfer they should be deemed to have not opted for contribution and then on merging it would be open to the members to opt, by democratic decision, for contribution if they so wish. We will be moving an amendment on Committee Stage along those lines.

In principle, this Bill is most acceptable and is an excellent Bill. It is one that can be improved in certain areas that I have just mentioned, and while we will give the Second Stage to the Minister, we wish to see the Committee Stage held over for some weeks to enable constructive amendments along the lines I have mentioned to be prepared.

Mr. Kennedy

In these days of dissension and conflict it might be appropriate for me to point out that the trade union movement is a national body in every sense of the expression, embracing the whole country, North and South, and bringing into the orbit unions with headquarters in the Republic and unions with headquarters in the United Kingdom.

There is general agreement within the trade union movement that the movement requires rationalisation. There is quite a variance of opinion regarding the scope and the form of that rationalisation. In any event, the question of rationalisation inside the movement is one for the movement itself. Whatever might eventuate in the future in this respect it is absolutely certain that it will involve amalgamation and transfer of arrangements and so on. This is the field in which legislation is necessary and essential. I welcome this Bill, and I thank the Minister for bringing about the necessary changes in the legislation —changes which will enable unions, if they so desire, to amalgamate or transfer in an easier and cheaper fashion than hitherto.

However while the Bill, generally speaking, is acceptable to the trade union movement and followed a great deal of discussion between the Minister and the trade union movements, there are some things that I think should be included in it. They are things which I understood the Minister had agreed with Congress. For instance, Congress were anxious to ensure that voting on amalgamation and transfers of engagements should be confined to benefit members of the unions themselves or to members specified in the union's rules as entitled to vote on amalgamation and transfers. I do not think there is anything in the Bill to cover this point. I would appreciate it if the Minister would give us some further information about this aspect.

The Bill provides for the making of grants to cover certain expenses arising in amalgamation and transfers. It does not specify the type of expenses that would be paid. For instance, will the expenses include fees for consultants or the reports from consultants? Will the expenses include the payment of legal expenses? Unlike the position in the United Kingdom we have a written Constitution here and very often trivial cases end up in the High Court or the Supreme Court if two or more unions want to effect an amalgamation or transfer. It is quite possible that on some very trivial question the matter could end up in the High Court or the Supreme Court. Although the matter itself might be trivial, we all know that the legal fees are not trivial. I should like to know if the provisions relating to grants from the Minister for Finance include consultancy fees, legal fees and so on. What exactly does the section provide for?

The most important factor in this legislation is not covered by the Bill. It is the question of the power which members of these unions have to "do their own thing", as it were. The Minister says that section 15, as amended, provides for the setting up of an executive committee of British unions in Northern Ireland and that this ensures that Irish trade unionists have a say in the management of their own affairs. The members of these unions and the members of Irish unions and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions representing the whole trade union movement do not want any section of workers to have a say in their affairs. They want them to control their own affairs. Something in addition to the setting up of purely Irish committees in respect of British unions is necessary.

We have suggested to the Minister that there should be a written provision giving authority to the members of Irish unions in Ireland, North or South, to decide for themselves whether they will effect an amalgamation or a transfer. That would dispose of any deficiencies that would crop up in the Bill.

Senator Lenihan suggested that where amalgamations are effected and the members of one union had not been paying into a political fund those members should not be required to pay into the political fund of the other union. The existing legislation covers this adequately. If one were to argue that members merging with another group of workers should not be required to contribute to one fund in the other union, why should they contribute to a strike fund, a pension fund, or any other fund? If they are embraced in the political rules of another union they have the opportunity of opting out, so it could really be a paper exercise. However, when companies amalgamate either on a national scale or an international scale nobody knows who pays what into the political funds. There are no records kept as there are in the trade union movement. It is not true to say that payments into the union's political fund is payment indirectly into the Labour Party fund. The rules of most unions provide that the fund is used for political purposes. A number of unions in times of elections give financial support to members of the union of all political persuasions and of none.

I should like to thank the Minister for the assistance he has given Congress in formulating this Bill. I should also like to ask him to have regard to the points I have made.

Mr. Cowen

Anyone looking at the industrial and economic problems we have had over the past 40 years is bound to look for causes. World recession or our own Government's fault or lack of increased production could be put forward as a cause. Inter-union bickering could be a cause. There are hundreds of scapegoat causes that could be pinpointed The unions are often unjustly blamed. Mainly because of historical reasons we find ourselves in the position of having a large number of small unions. Over 400,000 workers are organised in over 100 unions in this country. In contrast there are 6,400,000 workers organised in 16 industrial unions under the West German Trade Union Federation. The high number of trade unions here has created grave problems and has had an effect on our economic progress. Both employers and trade unions have suffered as a result.

The incidence of inter-union disputes is also on the increase. This is not to be wondered at when we consider that there are 21 unions representing 11,000 workers in the ESB alone. This in itself signifies a grave need for amalgamation and for a lesser number of smaller unions. To further complicate matters there are a number of unions catering for the same category of workers. This is the main cause of friction within our trade union movement. When so many small unions represent the same type of worker, naturally there would be a tendency towards friction.

For these reasons I welcome this Bill. Amalgamations of unions will be made somewhat easier because of this legislation. It is up to the workers, the trade unions and the employers to ensure that they formulate agreements all sides can adhere to.

Our entry to the EEC naturally has created grave problems, particularly for the smaller unions. The fact that the larger unions would be in a better position to cope with these complex problems again illustrates the necessity for a lesser number of unions and, indeed, for the amalgamation of most of the smaller with the larger unions. Smaller unions are not capable of dealing with the complex issues and situations which could arise because of our involvement in the European Economic Community.

Many people involved in trade unions down through the years have given serious thought to amalgamation. There was some hinderance in existing legislation towards that development. On that basis, and taking into consideration that so many involved in the trade union movement have naturally tended towards amalgamation, this Bill is welcome. When one takes into consideration the position in West Germany, Holland and other continental countries, it is only natural to assume that now, when we are involved with such countries in trade and in every aspect of our economy, we should be aligned with those countries in other respects. Trade disputes could be settled more easily because fewer unions will be involved.

The smaller unions, after amalgamation, may find it difficult to get employment for their officials. I feel certain the Minister will ensure that a person employed in a small union will be re-employed after amalgamation. There are diminishing numbers in the smaller unions. When they consent to amalgamation, this is a very serious step from their point of view. They are burying their identity and that is not an easy thing for any group to do. On that basis alone, every precaution should be taken to ensure that those officials in the small unions are re-employed after amalgamation.

I would welcome a more definite provision in this Bill in regard to the postal vote. When one is considering amalgamation there may be a tendency on the part of the officials of the smaller union to do something to try and hold on. If this Bill were more definite on the postal vote, that problem could be minimised to some extent.

I do not intend to detain the House too long on this Bill. When through amalgamation, we have a lesser number of unions, there will be closer co-operation between urban and rural workers. Unions should make some efforts to cater particularly for the farm labourer. This is one section of the community which has been left to one side through the years. After some years, through the amalgamation of these unions and with the emergence of a significantly smaller number of unions, there could be some room in those unions for the small farmer. In many cases the income of the small farmer can now be aligned with the income of the farm worker. Those people have been left out in the cold down through the years. With fewer unions catering for all types of workers, the farm labouring community will be properly organised and involved in the trade union movement. At a later stage in this debate some of the trade union officials might be able to enlighten me on this point.

Getting back to the amalgamation of unions, there will be a certain amount of difficulty involved in getting each worker who has a vote to use it. We are all well aware that in the Australian parliamentary elections a voter who has a vote and does not use it, can be fined. From the point of view of democracy this system might not be in line with our thinking. If the trade unions concerned fined a worker who did not utilise his vote in regard to amalgamation, it would strengthen their hand and bring about a change of attitude in the individual concerned. He should utilise that vote in order to ensure that he is more properly represented in the larger trade union movement. My suggestion of a fine would not, I know, be in the best traditions of this country. However, Australia is considered quite a democratic State, although, of course being fined for not voting in parliamentary elections is a difficult thing.

I hope this Bill will be a help towards streamlining the amalgamation of unions. I hope every financial aid will be given by the State to unions who desire to amalgamate. We should give every help we can to the unions so that they can work more effectively, because the good work they are doing will naturally develop our economy. There will be better representation of the workers concerned. Indeed, both the worker and the employer would benefit from such amalgamations.

We here are fortunate that the trade union movement here covers the Thirty-two Counties. The barriers between North and South have caused much trouble in the past in other spheres. That is not the case with the trade union movement.

On a Trade Union Bill naturally the emphasis is placed on the trade union movement and the worker. We seem to forget the employer. There is a substantial number of employers here who would tell you they are the hardest workers in the country.

Through legislation such as this I hope there will be more unity and concern on all sides. That is the reason I welcome this type of legislation. I have tried to point out the reasons I feel that the trade union movement has not developed to the extent it should have in the past year. As I said earlier, for historical reasons we were saddled with a large number of small trade unions.

I am not condemning small trade unions and I do not want the wrong impression taken, but I feel certain that the workers in those small trade unions realise that they can better further their interests by amalgamating with larger trade union groups. This is more true now than ever before. Let us hope that this legislation will enable us align ourselves with the industrial countries we are now involved with through our membership of the European Economic Community to the extent that we will have a smaller number of trade unions working for the betterment of the worker and perhaps co-operating better with the Federated Union of Employers, because this is on the cards. When the Federated Union of Employers have a lesser number of unions to deal with, naturally there will be more co-operation and more development.

Mr. Harte

If I leave out the employers in my contribution it is not because I think they are not affected by this legislation but because of my bias for the workers. I am not saying that employers are not affected by the lack of rationalisation in the trade union movement. Employers can be hit by this lack of rationalisation and multiplicity of unions. On the other hand, I should like to say that for many years the trade union movement has been conscious of the need for rationalisation within the trade union movement. The Minister pointed out that in my own firm there are 2,200 workers represented by 18 unions, and I could not agree more that this seems a rather ridiculous situation. I happen to represent 1,700 of those workers. That means that the other 500 or so are represented by about 17 unions. Some of the 1,700 I mention are in another branch of my union, therefore, we are talking about 17 unions in one industry representing about 500 people. That is a measure of the problem you face. Fortunately in Guinness's we have a good working relationship. Disputes there are very infrequent, I am glad to say, and that is to the credit of my fellow trade unionists.

I should like to talk in a general way about the advantages of this Bill to the working class movement —what they can gain from it. The Minister referred to problems in the way of amalgamations—for example, the difficulties the two engineering unions got themselves into. That was the subject of High Court and, ultimately, Supreme Court wrangling. The two unions found themselves taking part in a very costly and trying exercise and nobody is quite sure whether the problem has been totally resolved. It is a problem that left a lot of headaches and made a lot of men older before their time.

The Trade Union Acts from 1876 to 1970, even the 1941 Act or the 1971 Act, did not give the scope that this Bill will give to meet the type of problem we had with regard to the multiplicity of unions. Therefore this Bill sets out clearly what exactly is needed to satisfy the law with regard to amalgamations of trade unions bearing in mind that some of them have not got big money and cannot afford the crushing cost that can result from actions such as have been taken by the two engineering unions.

I am impressed by many provisions in the Bill. I share Senator Kennedy's views on scope, form and one or two other areas. I also share his view about who takes the initiative in respect of amalgamations. Unions are very conscious that something must be done about this.

I also accept that the Bill does not do anything that would jeopardise any initiatives taken in that respect. Therefore, I must go on record as giving it a welcome. The word "shall" is clearly defined in section 2. This is a very positive word. I do not wish to take up time by quoting the sections but they are very positive in their meaning. This is a very encouraging trend. When the word "shall" is used it impresses me because it puts the onus on both unions to know exactly where they are going. This ensures that they will not get into a situation similar to that which the electrical and engineering trade unions got into in the past. Another trade union, in a lesser way, got into trouble also.

It is clearly stated in section 3 that every member of the union shall have a vote. It protects the rights of the individual to have a say in determining where he believes he will get the best service. Two-thirds of the voting power is another way in which the individual's rights are protected. The section dealing with the secret ballot also protects the members. There can be no interference or constraints on them. They must get notice of their rights prior to voting. Seven days before any action takes place there must be notice in the papers before voting—not before discussions are under way, but before voting.

The Bill is designed not only to facilitate the movement towards rationalisation of the trade union movement in general, and to help towards a better relationship by which the nation can benefit, but also to protect the individual, who in the past may have had the feeling that he was about to be sold out by one of his trade union leaders. That can no longer be the case.

The Bill makes it clear that, where unions want to merge, to take advantage of the better services they can get, to avoid overlapping and so on, the financially weak unions will be in a position to get aid, and the resources of the stronger unions, as I read the Bill, will not be drained by embarking on amalgamation. The union that is financially strong and the union financially weak will both be entitled to financial assistance to meet certain costs. Like Senator Kennedy, I am not sure exactly what is meant by costs, whether it means consultants' fees, legal costs and so on. Nevertheless, there is scope there to deal with costs.

Everybody agrees there is need for greater unity in the trade union movement and for a more rational structure in order that the members would get a better service. This Bill goes a long way to encouraging that move. I am particularly interested in this question of unity, not only from the employers' point of view but more so from the point of view of the workers and what they are losing by dissipating their energies through this multiplicity of unions overlapping, the draining of resources that could be employed on a better basis, not making use of best talent available to put forward their causes.

No trade union legislation can be drawn up that will bring about a unity of hearts and minds. That has got to happen within the trade union movement itself. We can only draw up a Bill, put as many constructive provisions into it to meet the situation, and do as much as possible to see that the harmful effects that might have been there heretofore in amalgamations are wiped out. It is a question of whether the Bill can induce this unity of hearts and minds. The ingredients are there. If it is adequately publicised, the fears, doubts and mistrusts of members that there might be a sellout or that their fate would be decided by officials without ballots and without a right to compensation, will be overcome.

Many people are genuinely concerned about Ireland and her workers. I have no doubt that, having read the Bill, they will be satisfied that the means by which they can strive towards this unity of hearts and minds is built into the Bill. If the Bill goes only some of the way towards achieving a trade union movement with less antagonism and conflicts, less competition between members, less overlapping in matters common to each union involved in any industry with consequent waste of time, money and energy, then it will be seen by trade union leaders as something that will help them to effectively initiate positive moves and practical steps towards rationalising the structure of the unions.

In the early sixties efforts were made to deal with trade union rationalisation. In 1965, the general unions, with a membership of almost 200,000 —the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, the Workers Union of Ireland, the Federation of Rural Workers, the Irish Municipal Workers Union and the Marine Port and General Workers Union—after efforts to amalgamate, finally talked about a federation. Unfortunately, that did not take place either. Finally two unions, the Transport Union and the Workers Union of Ireland, finished up talking about the question of amalgamation. I refer to this to demonstrate that, had this Bill been on the Statute Book at that time and had the facilities been there, more positive and practical steps would have been taken to bring about trade union rationalisation. It is also quite clear that quite a lot of unions now, which have a common historical background and with no real basic differences in their policies or approach—in a lot of cases the relationships are very good and friendly between the unions—and with the old prejudices, conflicts and suspicions gone, will welcome this Bill.

Trade unionists will be very keen about this Bill, because with the pace of change in industry, through the technological progress and re-organisation, there are problems facing unions and they need to establish a close working relationship. Generally speaking, the Bill provides the guidelines. It is desirable that the trade union movement, with its 500,000 membership covering the Thirty-two Counties, should grow in its effectiveness to influence changes in society.

At the moment the trade union movement plays a very effective role. But if this multiplicity of unions, the overlapping and the waste of time I referred to earlier on, can be overcome it can play a more effective role. If people make use of the possibilities within the Bill and the facilities it provides to make sure the individual is protected, then the changes in society that the trade union movement would like to see coming about, the question of a more equitable distribution of wealth and the development of our natural resources, will take place.

Earlier on I said that this Bill might not have all the ingredients the trade unions would like to have built into it to help them cope with the many complex and difficult situations that arise through the multiplicity of unions in single industries. It may not have taken sufficient notice that federation might be desired by a lot of people who are afraid of losing their identity. I think Senator Cowan touched on this briefly. There is a fear that people might lose their identity in larger unions. I would prefer amalgamation, but the people in small unions afraid of losing their identity would welcome some indication of how far the Minister would go with unions who might want to enter into a federation. It might be a good thing to take care of this. On the other hand the Minister was trying to deal with amalgamations and to introduce any question of federation possibly might minimise the effects of the Bill.

Workers nowadays have been getting a lead from the Trade Union Congress. In a very big organisation there is always a communication gap. But by and large the workers are beginning to understand the increasing need to co-ordinate negotiations at local, industrial and national levels and also the need to represent workers' interests at national level, both directly to Governments and on national bodies. They have influence in this particular area, access to Ministers and so on. They have scope to sit on national bodies. But, with the coming together of many talents the elimination of waste of time and energy which the Bill will help them bring about, they can protect those interests at national level more effectively than they can at the moment. The workers realise this.

If the Bill is given more widespread circulation throughout the trade union movement to stimulate the thinking of the ordinary members it will help to ease attitudes towards amalgamation. When the rights of individual members is fully understood by people on the shop floor a great deal of the thinking about large unions and the disparity in membership may no longer be a threat because the knowledge that the trade union officials are not deciding their fate will now become evident. Even though this was not the case before the Bill was introduced, when trade union leaders were trying to bring about amalgamations or federations, there was suspicion and doubt in the minds of members that they might be selling them out. This was not the case because the rules of the unions would not have allowed that but nevertheless the suspicion was there. The provisions of the Bill will reassure individuals, particularly in respect of their rights to consultation and a valid vote by two-thirds majority.

Workers will grow in experience through the educational training programmes and being in contact with workers who have a higher standard of education. This will help the people I spoke of earlier on. This Bill will help them to understand that their togetherness is all-important in this day and age. It may well be that, properly handled, we could have a concensus that to crow in your own particular bailiwick is no longer serving the interests of workers particularly when they witness the development of very large and powerful organisations representing interests opposed to the trade union interests. Workers are then more likely to take the view that their security lies in the evolution and modernisation of the trade union structures and resources.

The Bill also provides the means to facilitate the viewpoint I have just expressed. If I am correct in my assumption that the earlier viewpoint of suspicion, doubt and fear of being swallowed up is diminishing, the Bill can be of assistance to workers to come together on many matters in the first instance and then finally get down to the question of either federation or amalgamation. Workers could cooperate on a lot of matters they have in common, then broaden them out into federation and subsequently into amalgamation.

The inevitable result of that kind of development will be that they will recognise the strength that grows out of their amalgamation, not in the sense of sheer cussedness that they get strength and power to abuse situations, but on the basis of bringing together a lot of talent that are presently wasted on trivial things, and dealing with arrogant and unreasonable attitudes and unnecessary conflicts within the movement instead of a concentration on the collective abilities to overcome the threats that bedevil the trade union movement or to strengthen the efforts of the trade union officials, when they are trying to match up to people who have not got their interests at heart or when they are trying to circumvent the effects of powerful organisations opposed to trade unionism.

Again, speaking from the shop floor point of view, I think that there will be an awareness nowadays that it is only organisations of a reasonable size that will be able to provide the staff to cover the very wide range of services and activity that is demanded and is necessary to meet the challenge, not only from other bodies opposed to trade union interests, but to deal with the increasing rapidity of technological change, the effects of free trade employment and the need for training and re-training as a result of the many rationalisation programmes taking place within industry and which leaves people in some age groups with nowhere to go. If all the resources are put together then the pressures can be put on to see that in this respect also the workers' rights are protected. It is only by a coming together through amalgamation that this real effectiveness can manifest itself.

The question of growing living standards is another matter to be considered. If the Trade Union Bill is communicated in the proper way and it is properly understood either by way of seminars or explanatory statements by the trade union movement then it will be welcomed by workers.

Many trade union leaders in the past, when they were talking about amalgamations or federations, because of old prejudices and conflicts could not be as clear in their announcements or statements as they would have liked. They had to tread very warily indeed. They were a little vague so as to avoid offending their members. Again, it is a question of their members talking about their identity being lost in big organisations.

The Bill will allow people to be positive. The trade union organisation and its affiliated bodies may find sufficient in the Bill to enable them now to come out strongly in favour of amalgamation because in the past they had not got anything on the Statute Book to back them up. They will be able to advise members in what direction they should travel in the interests of using this power in a conation structive way to counter the effects of organisations that have not got trade union interests at heart.

The attitude of trade union workers and their organisations in the past was that they believed that trade unions were designed and structured to represent and to defend the working classes. They believed that the trade unions should set up organisations for dealing with their demands but this did not really reflect the collective will and purpose of the trade union movement or of organised labour. To speak about the trade union movement as being strictly a defensive organisation was a bit narrow. It was a hindrance to bringing about a strong, unified and truly democratic labour movement. I am glad to say that latter day attitudes have grown away from that strictly defensive attitude. Workers today look on their organisations as both offensive and defensive organisations. In my opinion the growth of unity in the movement will give them real power and the capacity to promote and advance the social and economic interests of Irish workers. I think the Bill will go a long way to speed up that process. I am satisfied that the workers seek the objectives of achievement and maintenance of full employment, a steady rise in living standards, equality of opportunity, a fair distribution of incomes and wealth, the elimination of poverty, comprehensive and adequate welfare services and improvements in the quality of life and environment. I believe they have now come to a greater awareness of the fact that they are in a very strong organisation. They believe those objectives are desirable. We are getting away from the narrow concept of what can be squeezed out of the employer at local level and there is a movement towards the type of policies, aims and objectives I mentioned.

The trade union movement has in the past made great strides, both North and South. What it has achieved has not only been good for the trade union movement but has been good for the Irish nation as well. Despite the difficulties encountered by the Northern Ireland trade unionists they have played an important role in building up the economy there, but they have not got a lot of credit for it. Northern Ireland trade unionists have a lot in common with trade unionists here. They would probably have some reservations about the question of British-based unions. However, the section is framed in such a way that I do not think it would be an impediment to union rationalisation. I am sure people from the North of Ireland would sit in on discussions which might bring about amalgamation of trade unions in the South. The objections I mentioned about the unbalanced distribution of wealth and so on will no doubt influence them, particularly as they would like to see the same thing occur in the North.

Everyone knows that rationalisation has been on the cards for 16 or 17 years now and that little progress has been made. People must understand the complications it entails—for example, as I mentioned earlier, loss of identity and people wanting to crow in their own particular bailiwick. The aim of the Bill is to bring people together. There is a danger that we could lose the value of what we are aiming for by trying to achieve major objectives but at the same time, because of past conflicts, prejudices or traditions, staying in smaller units. Small units are not viable in many cases and the employees of some small unions are lucky on occasions even to get their wages. Members need to have a realisation of that fact plus the fact that they are losing out on expertise, talent and are allowing their own energies and the energies of their own officials to be dissipated. If the contents of this Bill are communicated correctly we can look to initiatives being taken to rationalise the movement without the fear or suspicion that so often is part and parcel of merger discussions.

The outlook of trade unionists generally can continue to broaden to meet workers' needs and demands that have multiplied and have taken on new forms. If the will is there to utilise the Bill properly the trade unions will come to a realisation that it is no longer possible to exist in small units, because the requirements of their members as trade unionists, citizens and parents will not be served. If they confine themselves to local matters, they will be unable to influence industrial, political and cultural and educational matters on a national scale. Workers must understand that the questions in which trade unions are involved are no longer confined to the place of employment. The trade unionist himself is a producer and a consumer. When he leaves his place of employment he has to broaden out. He can broaden out further if he makes up his mind to play a decisive role in shaping his future. This can only be done by recognising that his interest does not lie merely within the walls of his place of employment.

The Trade Union Bill, 1974, if given the consideration that it merits, will create the atmosphere to help people to make use of the possibilities contained in it. Possibly a realisation will emerge among workers—I hope it will —that the Bill if properly utilised can constitute a step towards proper unity and from unity to the great strengths which I referred to earlier and the satisfaction of trade unions exercising a greater influence in society as a whole not only for themselves but for the nation. They can do this without merging with the views of the private enterprise society or surrendering any of their ideas to the private enterprise system.

The Bill strives to facilitate the approach to unity. It may also be the means whereby the unwarranted confidence in private enterprise to solve our economic ills will be challenged constructively through the efforts of a strong, united trade union movement. These are the possibilities I see within the Bill, whereby the workers can, if they get to understand the meaning of it, achieve quite a lot.

When I refer to challenging private enterprise regarding the unwarranted confidence in the system, I do not say it in a bitter way. It can be done constructively by the talents that will come together in the trade union movement. They have already played a great role, despite the complex and difficult situation which they are in, not only to shape the economy but also the social side of life.

Apart from what is contained in the Bill and the possibilities it offers, people may become conscious of the fact that where you had bitter enemies who invaded each other's countries and slaughtered each other and even raped each other's lands and homes, they have come together on the Continent. They did not come together for the sake of satisfying the needs of people outside their own particular movement. They come together on the basis of an enlightened selfish interest. We as trade unionists would be the last in the world to say trade unionists are not selfish. Of course we are. The nature of the society and its advertisement campaigns have made us selfish. We can be selfish and at the same time constructive in selfishly pursuing our own particular aims.

If we amalgamate and use all the facilities available to us and the services that can be given to us through amalgamation, then your trade unions can realise the benefits, and the prejudices will be sunk. The fears that stopped them coming together in a common venture for a common purpose will have come to the surface and there will be further development.

We should give the Bill a hearing and concentrate on the possibilities the Bill offers for real unity. It will not solve all our problems but it will give us a chance to deal with the real ones and not the side issues. It will enable us to apply our resources more effectively to tacking unemployment, the rise in living standards, the quality of opportunities, fairer distribution of wealth and incomes, the elimination of poverty and exercising an influence over the proper utilisation of the natural resources of the country. That list of policies, coupled with the question of adequate social welfare services and the quality of life and environment, are very worthwhile social and economic aspirations. Therefore, while the Minister has not put those policies into his Bill, it is a matter for the people within the trade union movement to take the initiatives. I thank the Minister for having sufficient courage to bring about the type of Bill that was very badly needed. I hope that many of the points which I made will be shared with a lot of my fellow trade unionists and that they will grasp the opportunity to initiate moves that will help us to grow and develop into a much greater and more effective organisation in the interests of the trade unions as a whole but in the interests of the nation also.

Mr. Dolan

Like those who have already spoken, I wish to welcome this Bill which is well designed and well intentioned. I believe it will be most useful. It will provide the machinery which eventually, we hope, will lead to the amalgamation of the multiplicity of trade unions in this country.

It is fair to say that trade unions have been very necessary. Indeed the history of the whole trade union movement in this country would be a most instructing and a very interesting book if put together. I belong to one of the oldest trade unions in the country, the INTO, which was formed almost 110 years ago. This is a union from which many of the other unions who were formed in later years have derived immense benefits from the manner in which that union was set up and from their general structure and the various sections and funds which they provided for members.

Unions in the beginning were very necessary. They taught the worker to stand on his feet. They taught the employer and other people to realise the dignity of the worker and the human being and that the man who was working was a very important factor in the economy of the nation as a whole.

In my part of Ulster, well into the middle of this century there was a practice whereby workers who were hired with various people had no set hours. I have in mind a story which was told of a man who went to work in the morning at 6 o'clock cutting whins for horses. He went out ploughing during the day and at night when the work was finished he was sent out to the barn to thrash. The result was that he was working about 18 to 20 hours per day. He then told the employer he was going to leave. He said why: "I think I will go somewhere where I might get a permanent job."

That shows that in those days the worker certainly needed a trade union to back up his demands and give him a rightful place in society. We in this country have to be very thankful to the various trade union movements throughout the ages who have amalgamated the workers into various groups and who have fought for the rights and who have produced their rules and regulations and so on. If in later years we have multiplicity of trade unions, that to my mind is besides the point. I think, however, with our entry into the EEC, that it is necessary for us to re-examine the whole structure and I compliment the Minister in bringing in this Bill because it does not force amalgamation but provides the machinery whereby many of these unions can get together, and by doing that they will be able to work out for themselves fewer unions with better bargaining power and with more funds which they will try to use to benefit their workers through fostering educational schemes and providing the various things that members of unions now appreciate or are entitled to.

Reference was made to almost 100 unions catering for 400,000. In present circumstances that is totally wrong. We can look at some of the groups mentioned. For instance, in CIE there are 21 unions catering for 11,000 people; in Goulding's, 12 unions catering for 700. Figures like those, I think, were given. There are 18 unions in Guinness's. One would imagine that in a firm such as Guinness's that have provided, so far as I know, throughout the years tremendous services for their workers, it would have been possible for the workers to get together and have one or two unions. I am not dictating as to what is in their best interests but from an outside point of view one would say that one or two unions would be in a better position to negotiate rather than having multiplicity therein. The same thing could be said of CIE and the ESB.

The Bill may have the effect of encouraging these people to get together. I fully realise that often it is not easy because there are various officials in charge of various unions and that a means must be found whereby few of those people would lose their positions or if they did that they would be compensated in that respect. People who have dedicated a great part of their lives to jobs such as those cannot be thrown overboard and we cannot expect those unions to come together and jettison the officials. There must be machinery provided, and I think there is some in the Bill, whereby public funds might be used to help to solve this problem—anything in that way that could be done to ensure that we would have fewer unions. I feel it is generally accepted now that it would in one way or another mitigate the number of industrial disputes we have had. I am not questioning the right of the worker to withdraw his labour but at the same time we have to be conscious in the competitive world in which we live. We must have our workers organised in such a way, we must have our unions organised in such a way, that they will be able to negotiate quickly, that they will understand —and they should be taken into this in a big way—what the employers are trying to do.

Employers, too, are very important people and those who own factories and those who create employment certainly will have to be considered. In the past, the workers had given magnificent service. They should be taken more into the confidence of the management. We have an enormous amount of machinery in the country now for settling strikes, between the Labour Court, conciliation and arbitration and so on. In the years ahead we would strive as earnestly as possible to ensure that we will not have these strikes which are detrimental to the workers themselves and which we know are very detrimental to our country. A strike places the employer who would be trying to sell goods on foreign markets in a very awkward position, because he often is not able to fulfil the orders and if he is not, then eventually we will reach the position where workers will be let go. Eventually the manager and the factory may lose their overseas orders. I know that the workers realise these things, that with our entry into the EEC it is more important now than ever.

Some provision has been made in the Bill as to how these amalgamations could take place. I think one section refers to having a ballot. In days gone by it had to be a two-thirds majority but now that has been changed to a simple majority. That is a good thing. On the question of having a ballot, it is important it should be a secret ballot, that the ballot papers should be posted out to all the members and that they should be returned to an auditor and counted in that way. I do not agree with a practice in some places of a show of cards or a show of hands because if often puts people in an awkward position. The ballot is the fairest way and the most democratic way of doing it. That is covered in the Bill too.

Somebody mentioned the change of name and that, too, is important. There would have to be agreement and I think it is covered by some section whereby two or three unions may get together and may agree on this and it should not be a very difficult exercise. I am sure the officials of the trade unions and the Congress of Trade Unions will be very happy to facilitiate the unions involved in trying to achieve this very desirable purpose.

We have a situation whereby some unions in this country are British-based. We have to be very careful so as to ensure that the people who will be making the decisions at executive level will not be making decisions in London or Berlin or some other country which would adversely affect our workers here. It could happen that many of the higher positions in these unions would not be held by Irishmen. We have to ensure that the rights and legitimate aims of our trade union officials will be realised in this respect, in other words that any member of a trade union would have the right to go right to the top in his own country if he so wished—get promotion on his ability, and so on. Very often there may be different methods and different rules in these foreign-based unions and I know that our trade union officials will keep a close eye on this. It would be in their own interest to do so and certainly in the interest of their workers.

It has often been brought to my notice that some insurance companies could be foreign-owned and have their officials abroad. These things certainly would be to the detriment of our own unions' members in such companies.

I am sure that somebody has made a close study of how our trade union movement compares with trade union movements in France or Germany or in any of the other Common Market countries. It is significant that more than 6,000,000 workers in Germany have only 18 unions, or something like that. I suppose there is a lesson to be learned from it. In post-war Germany the workers were very conscious of the need to build up the national economy and they organised their trade union system probably something different from ours.

We have a different history and now that we are in the EEC it is no harm for us to have a second look at this and I welcome the Minister's thinking on it because in this Bill he is giving them a chance to more or less stimulate interest in the facet of the trade union movement.

There are various things in this Bill regarding the transfer of property. It includes rules for amalgamation in the rule books of various trade unions and so on, and reference will be made to most of these on Committee Stage. The Bill is a genuine, sincere effort by the Minister to try to bring some sane thinking into the general national outlook so far as unions in general are concerned for the benefit of the workers and for the benefit of the employers. We are all in this, both worker and employer. It is our duty to ensure that the national economy will improve and expand because of the efforts we, as workers or management, put into it. We must all be united in this. We must all try to get together with the best possible bargaining power we have so as to ensure that we will grasp the opportunity that is being given to Irish workers and Irish management to ensure that our country will get its deserved share of the benefits we feel will flow from our entry into the EEC.

Mr. Butler

I, too, welcome the Bill, which enables unions to get together to discuss amalgamation. This is proper and right because we have more than 100 unions representing 400,000 workers and in firms such as quoted by the Minister and by Senator Harte, there are more than 20 unions representing 11,000 workers.

In situations like that it is definitely necessary that we should have amalgamation machinery set up so most people could sit around and talk about it and find out the benefits of amalgamation and what would be going for them. There is just one doubt in my mind about amalgamations. It is the possible emergence of unions that might be too powerful. The flow of information from the top to the bottom would be slowed up and the flow of information from the bottom to the top also could be slowed and deliberately slowed up, and this causes me doubts. Many of the unofficial strikes that have taken place have been caused because the demand for the strike at local level had taken so long to get to the top and a decision made at top level. This took so long to get back to the workers that frustration set in and because of this frustration unofficial strikes took place.

I should not like to see a rush into amalgamation without enough thought having been given to it. I am involved in amalgamation in another sphere. When these amalgamations started everybody interested himself in them. They occurred very gradually and successfully until only a few small societies, as we will call them, were left and then there was a rush by the bigger societies to rob those smaller ones. A falling-out took place and this has been detrimental to the industry about which I am speaking, the dairy industry. This was caused by the lack of interest of the ordinary members in the amalgamation question. Neither was there enough interest taken by the shareholders. If they had talked about it among themselves they would have learned more about amalgamations and would have done a better job than they did.

I would be a little frightened that because of this legislation unions might opt for amalgamations that would not be good for them. Unions should represent a certain discipline. The three teachers' unions should come together by amalgamation or federation. In that way they would get better benefits, have less quarrelling and fewer strikes. The doctors' unions should come together. All their members have the same problems. They should amalgamate and negotiate as one unit with the Minister to iron out the problems that have arisen and not leave the country in the state that it might be in the future.

Amalgamations are very valuable, but there are doubts in my mind about the way unions should go about amalgamation. I know of one place where in a small union a large number of members went on unofficial strike and the union did not back that strike. The result was that the strike failed after one or two days. Those who were on official strike made application to the biggest union in this country for membership and were accepted into that union. The smaller union, of which I am president and proud to be president—and proud to be a union official—made a case to that union and explained what had happened, but the small union got no soot.

The reason I mention this is that I can see a time coming when to either defeat smaller unions or to have an amalgamation there would be powerful unions who would try to influence the members of other unions thereby taking votes from the unions to influence the amalgamation ballot. That would be a bad situation, and the case I have mentioned proves that this can happen. Those people who were accepted into that union were even in arrears to the union they had been in and this was also pointed out and the arrears were never cleared.

The powers of the big unions when they get too big can be detrimental to the idea of amalgamation which should be co-ordinated, and be subject to rules of certain disciplines. I appreciate that amalgamations would cut out a lot of problems—for instance, the problem of separate negotiations within firms. There would be one union negotiating for one type of people and there would be no obstacles. This is the type of interest that should be taken in amalgamations of the future. I also believe strongly that the votes should be secret and that a majority vote should rule. In our own union this is exactly what happens and I am glad to say that it is the unanimous opinion of our members that this is the proper thing to do. I am not too keen on postal voting, for two reasons. Firstly, a postal vote is sent out, whether in a registered letter or not, and the person who gets it could be of weak character and could be influenced by strong members who would show that person to vote the way they wished the member to vote.

Debate adjourned.