Trade Union Bill, 1974: Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Mr. Lenihan

I move amendment No. 1:

In subsection (1), page 3, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following paragraph:

"(b) every member of the union shall be entitled to vote by post where his circumstances so warrant."

This is an amendment that was discussed in the Dáil. It is one which I believe has a lot of merit having regard to the dispersed nature of employment and employees in trade unions. Trade union branches have members in every part of the country ranging from Cork to Donegal and Galway to Dublin.

It would appear reasonable in a voting situation such as is envisaged in section 3, which lays down the conditions for amalgamation or transfers— the principle of which we are in total agreement with — and the various safeguards which the Minister envisages in regard to ensuring that such amalgamations or transfers should take place in the proper manner, by way of secret ballot and without any interference or constraint in regard to the marking of the voting paper, in regard to the union taking the proper steps to ensure that the voting takes place not less than seven days before the resolution begins, that every member of the union has received a notice in writing complying with subsection (3) (e):

not less than seven days before voting on the resolution begins, the union shall cause to be published in at least one daily newspaper published in the State notice (in such form as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce under section 12) of the holding of the vote.

Paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) ensure that democratic procedures are observed in the voting procedures adopted where amalgamation or transfer is envisaged in regard to trade unions. Further safeguards in regard to trade unions satisfying the registrar in subsection (2) meets with our approval.

What we are seeking to do in amendment No. 1 and amendment No. 2 when we come to discuss it, is to strengthen the hand of the Minister through this legislation in the obvious direction for which it is designed. Obviously, the whole tenor of the section is designed to ensure that there is a full, fair and democratic vote.

I am suggesting that the realities of the situation as far as trade union members are concerned is that they are dispersed in many employments throughout many areas of the country. As the Minister said in the Dáil, there is nothing in the legislation to preclude a trade union adopting the postal system of voting. In regard to a vote under this section for an amalgamation or a transfer a union can decide to do that if it so wishes.

It is a vital protection to ensure a real majority vote of the trade unions concerned should there be postal voting. What I would like to avoid in any situation of this kind is any minority pushing through a decision that may not be truly representative of the majority of the amalgamating unions. If there is to be an amalgamation or a transfer, that should be seen to be fully democratic in every sense of the word. It is a different matter in an ordinary election. For instance, there are polling stations in every area. People know where their polling stations are. They go to the polling stations and they vote. That is the democratic procedure of voting. Here you are going to ask members of a trade union dispersed over the whole country in various employments to make a very important decision in regard to their future, in regard to amalgamation or transfer which, in most cases, would be a desirable matter. But, from the democratic aspect, I feel it should be written in here, as we suggest, in subsection (1), between lines 21 and 22, paragraph (b) that every member of the union shall be entitled to vote by post where his circumstances so warrant. In other words, if he is in a situation where it is difficult for him to vote, where the union may not be able to make the facility available to him by reason of where he works, he should have the entitlement to vote by post. The union then, in devising its election procedures, will have this as an alternative method whereby members can vote either by way of direct ballot or postal vote as they wish. It is a reasonable precaution in the interest of ensuring firstly that as large a number of people as possible vote and, secondly, that, by having such a strong majority behind whatever decision is made, there would be a real moral authority, apart from a legal authority, behind any amalgamation that takes place. In any such situation the largest number of people voting in a positive way is obviously the most desirable way to start a new amalgamated trade union. It is in that manner that such a trade union will get its full moral as well as legitimate authority. I think you are going to get the widest spread of the people voting by giving the entitlement to vote by post which may not be just practicable from the point of view of the trade union or the trade unionists, in many cases, unless this right is allowed.

Mr. Harte

I appreciate the point that has been made, particularly dealing with this type of legislation and the gravity of the situation at the time of a postal vote. But there might be some confusion. First of all one cannot allow a postal vote to someone who is not an in-benefit member because, under the rules, he is debarred. Secondly, there is a postal vote situation. I have members in six different counties. Every one of them is allowed a vote in every ballot. I may have as many as ten ballots in a year even on small issues such as election to a branch committee. I have no doubt that the bulk of the unions provide, in their rules, that people are catered for by the postal vote. There are obvious difficulties. If one argues that someone must get a postal vote into his hand, each individual, then a person who is lying in hospital is entitled to be asked if he wishes to vote or is able to do so, or a person who is holidaying in Majorca is entitled to be asked if he wishes to vote. Generally speaking, the option of a postal vote obtains. The emphasis on in-benefit membership has got to be kept in mind constantly. For example, there can ge a lot of people in Dublin, living next door to the union or within easy reach of the ballot box, who are denied votes because they are not in-benefit members. But once a person is in full benefit, he is entitled to a vote. As I understand it, in my union and in most of the other unions, there is provision for that, and it does happen.

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

I would point out to Senators that as between the Bill, as originally drafted, and what we have here now, I have accepted an amendment at the suggestion of the Opposition in the other House that we should have (e) added to section 3 (1). This is the part of the section which allows of publication in the public press "not less than seven days before voting on the resolution begins, the union shall cause to be published in at least one daily newspaper...". This was to ensure that no voting could, in fact, take place without the knowledge of the prospective voter.

It must be pointed out that there is the option available to the voter who has not been given reasonable opportunity of voting to bring his complaint before the registrar who, if such a case were proved, would be able to declare the entire process invalid. Therefore, the position in the Bill, as drafted, is that we are satisfied that there is full notification to the prospective voter about the date, the rules and what is at issue. All of these things are looked after in the legislation. Also we are satisfied that postal voting is allowable under the section as set down here.

I find myself in complete agreement with the general line of Senator Lenihan and other Senators that all prospective voters would understand what is at issue. I am satisfied that that is covered in the legislation, as drafted. I am satisfied also that it would be superfluous and unnecessary to add any postal clause specifically. It is covered here. Therefore, there is no need to accept the amendment as I do not believe the case arises.

Mr. Lenihan

I appreciate Senator Harte's point that, in practice, trade unions would adopt the postal vote procedure, which is the practice already. I do not see the Minister's point that it is actually written into the section as it stands before us. I would like to see where in the section it can be done, or a trade union may do it. I am trying to be helpful here because I think we are all agreed that it is desirable to have as large a majority of trade unions voting on such an important matter in order to give moral legal authority to the new amalgamated unions. While I appreciate that in 90 per cent of the cases trade unions will adopt the postal vote procedure, I would like to see it written into the section. I should like to know from the Minister where it is in the section because I do not see it.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I want to make a point on the wording of the amendment. I agree with Senator Lenihan to this extent: I think everyone wants to do the best he can to make sure that everyone has a vote. I was very impressed by Senator Harte's contribution. It was a practical contribution from a person who has practical experience and who knows what is done in trade unions. I do not say this disparagingly but it seems to me that the amendment, as suggested, is much more theoretical than practical. For example, it would raise all sorts of questions as to who decides when a person's circumstances warrant a postal vote; there could be all sorts of complications arising. As I understand the position, as indicated by the Minister and by Senator Harte's contribution, there is nothing here to prevent the postal vote if the union, as a matter of practice, with its own experience in handling these matters, decides in particular circumstances that a postal vote is desirable. There does not seem to be anything to cut that out. I understand that, in fact, is the situation and it seems all points of view are reasonably catered for having regard to that.

Mr. E. Ryan

If somebody could assure the House that every union had provision for postal voting then I agree this amendment would not be necessary. Apparently we have been told that most unions do have provision for postal voting. What this amendment is trying to ensure is that everybody who wants an opportunity to vote by postal voting should be entitled to that right. In case there are some unions who do not have postal voting, they would be obliged to have it for this particular purpose.

Mr. Kennedy

This Bill is designed to assist trade unions to effect amalgamation or transfers quickly and satisfactorily. Consequently it is a matter of some importance that the trade unions and their members should be satisfied with everything that goes into this Bill. I can assure Senator Lenihan, the Minister and the House that the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, its affiliated unions both North and South and the members of those affiliations are perfectly satisfied with this provision. I fully appreciate the point made by Senator Lenihan and other Senators but trade unions and their members find that they are covered sufficiently by this provision as it stands, without amendment.

Mr. Lenihan

If Senator Kennedy, with Senator Harte, says that this is the case then I take it that in practice this will be covered by the ordinary machinery of voting and, on that basis, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lenihan

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, subsection (1), between lines 26 and 27, to insert a new paragraph as follows:

"(d) voting shall be supervised by an officer from the Office of the Registrar, nominated for that purpose by the Registrar."

This is designed to ensure what is generally envisaged by the Minister and the trade union movement in section 3, that in regard to amalgamations and transfers the matter be dealt with as democratically as possible and that all proper safeguards be taken. In parliamentary elections one has an independent returning officer, an official independent of the particular movements or political parties concerned in the election, and moving on that principle and on that analogy I suggest the insertion of a new paragraph as set out in amendment No. 2.

This does not carry in it any reflection whatever on the trade unions or their capacity to carry out an election, or the fairness or unfairness involved —it simply is the old principle of justice being seen to be done as well as being done. That is the reason we have arbitrators and returning officers in regard to parliamentary elections. Similarly the registrar in this case is being made the overlord of the whole system of amalgamations and transfers. Without any reflection whatever on the manner of the voting that takes place between the amalgamating trade unions and their members, at the same time there should be an independent officer. This officer should be from the office of the Registrar and nominated for that purpose by the Registrar who is the person nominated in the Bill to be the supervising officer of the administration of the Bill in all its aspects. We are seeking to add this further task to his overlordship, a very practicable task, that the voting should be supervised by an officer from his office and nominated by him so that justice should be seen to be done. This is in the interests of the amalgamating trade unions and their members because there are always people who raise narks and rows after voting takes place.

I think it valuable that everybody concerned in the amalgamation or the transfer process can say that the voting has taken place under an independent arbitrator—in this case the Registrar or his nominee—so that the members of one union who may have objected to the amalgamation or the transfer will not have a grouse or complaint against how the voting was done and cannot make any allegation of pressure against the majority decision, which I am certain will in all cases be legitimately and properly taken. This removes an area of ground away from a complaint of that nature.

We all know that there are plenty of people of that kind in society and if it is seen that the whole election process is supervised by someone who is not associated with the trade union movement as such but is an official of the Registrar who is charged with the overall administration of the Bill when it is law, that will carry more effective weight with the public and with the trade union members. It will carry more weight with members who will have complaints or chips on their shoulder if they are in the minority position after the amalgamation or transfer of votes has taken place. This will mean that justice will be seen to be done, as well as being done.

Mr. Kennedy

Here again I think this amendment is quite unnecessary. Trade unions have demonstrated quite clearly that they are capable of conducting their business in a democratic and fair manner without legal supervision, just as boards of directors of companies seem to be quite capable of effecting massive mergers and all kinds of arrangements to suit themselves without any kind of legal intervention. I would seriously suggest that if anybody is to supervise the holding of ballots by trade unions, certainly the effecting of mergers and other matters by company directors should be supervised also.

Mr. Harte

Again each union has union trustees and branch trustees. If you allow people to sit down and hammer out grounds on which to come together you cannot lay down the law too rigidly to them. If in free negotiation they have accepted each other's rules, even in regard to absorbing enough staff and other administrative difficulties, I do not think it would be right to bring somebody in from outside to supervise when they have elected trustees in each union.

No doubt the unions will ensure that the ballot is supervised by both parties, and this is the whole idea behind it. The fact that somebody from outside comes in and counts the votes does not give any protection. The protection lies in the fact that each union, after they have negotiated their way into a position where they can put it to a ballot, have people conducting and supervising the ballot who are representative of both parties negotiating the claims.

Mr. E. Ryan

While not necessarily disagreeing with Senator Kennedy when he made the comparison with companies, I would like to point out that the mergers and takeover bids he talks about are controlled by the most rigid rules and regulations on the part of the stock exchange. I do not necessarily say he is wrong in what he says about this amendment, but I could not let the occasion pass without pointing out that these are very rigidly controlled.

Mr. M. O'Leary

By virtue of the whole area of section 3 and the kind of action a prospective member may take under section 9, he is, in effect, transformed into a custodian of the justice of the provisions of the Act. Therefore, given the authority and the rights conferred on him by the Act, I do not see the need for this addition here that the registrar or an official from his office shall be present during the act of voting.

Since we have provided for the fairness of the voting procedure, the kind of notice that must be available to the prospective voter, the conditions that must be carried through in voting, the authority conferred on the voter himself, the penalties involved in the action he may take if his case of dissatisfaction is proved when he goes back to the registrar's office, for all of these reasons I would not see the point in accepting this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 3 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Government amendment No. 3.

In page 4, before section 9, to insert the following new section:

9. Where, in the case of a body of persons which is a trade union under the law of another country and has its headquarters control situated in that country, a majority of the members of that body who are resident in the area comprising the State and Northern Ireland so decide, the members of that body who are so resident may, in accordance with this Act, amalgamate with or transfer their engagements to another trade union and shall, from the making of such a decision, be a trade union for the purpose of section 2.

Mr. M. O'Leary

In the Bill as originally drafted, we were anxious to bring about a situation where there would be more rationalisation of trade union structure within Ireland, and that led on to the point where we sought to bring into being an executive authority for the union members in Ireland, north and south. But it did occur to us that the effect of the kind of legislation we had in the Bill as drafted would be not be to create more Irish unions but perhaps absorb Irish unions in the larger unions in Britain. Therefore, this amendment would permit the 32-County membership of a British-based union, if they so wish, to amalgamate or transfer their engagements.

The Bill as it stands facilitates the amalgamation of two Irish unions or the amalgamation of an Irish union into a British-based union. As it stands, the Bill makes it next to impossible for the Irish branches of British-based unions to amalgamate with another Irish union or with the Irish branch of another British-based union, because the majority in most cases would belong to the rest of the union's membership in Britain. For example, if an Irish branch of a British-based union wished to amalgamate with another trade union whether Irish-based or British-based, a majority of the vote of all members of that union resident in the State, Northern Ireland and in Britain, possibly millions of members, would be necessary to enable the amalgamation to take place. This would be impossible to achieve. The amendment seeks to overcome this by providing that the 32-County membership of a British-based union may, if they so wish, amalgamate or transfer their engagements. That is the purpose of this amendment.

Mr. Lenihan

I spoke along these lines on Second Stage urging the Minister to move further in the direction of allowing Irish-based members north and south to take decisions such as envisaged in his amendment, and, indeed, Senator Kennedy spoke specifically on these lines and mentioned that this was one of the points of view put by congress to the Minister which had not been included in the Bill originally.

I take it that the amendment largely meets the point Senator Kennedy and I were making. The Minister has referred just now to the danger under the original Bill of a British-based union eating up a smaller Irish-based union, the very danger which still exists without this amendment. This amendment means that if the Irish members of a British-based union—and by Irish I mean 32-County Irish members of that union—decide by a majority to transfer to another trade union, such a decision will, in effect, amount to an amalgamation as envisaged by this legislation.

If Senator Kennedy is happy with it I am happy with it as well. There is one point that occurs to me. It may be a drafting point or be a weakness in it, but, while I am totally in agreement with the principles in the suggested amendment, I would refer to the last three lines of the proposed amended section 9:

...amalgamate with or transfer their engagements to another trade union and shall, from the making of such a decision, be a trade union for the purpose of section 2.

Does that not leave it open that they may amalgamate with or transfer engagements to another British-based trade union? From the drafting point of view, in order to ensure what the the Minister envisages in the new section, should it not be stated there "transfer their engagements to another trade union based in the State or Northern Ireland?" I put a hypothetical situation where a majority of Irish-based trade unions north and south decide to leave a British-based trade union. Under this new section as phrased, they can proceed to join another British-based union. I would ask the Minister to clarify that point because it would certainly take the ground from under what was intended by the new section if the majority of British-based union A could, by a majority decision, transfer to British-based union B.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I do not think it would be possible to draft legislation that would limit the right of association to a particular union. We can go as far as we have gone here and give the Irish membership of any larger union with UK head office the right of deciding themselves and constituting themselves a trade union for the purpose of amalgamation or transfer under this Bill. That is what we have brought about in this section, but we could not designate or limit with whom they could amalgamate. That would not be possible under our Constitution. Certainly, it would abridge their right of association very seriously and I would remind Senators that while one might argue the benefits of such an objective in legislation of this kind, the real direction of this legislation is towards rationalisation of union structure. It does not enter a valid judgment of whether it is better with a British or an Irish union. The effect of the section here is to give the possibility to the Irish membership of amalgamating with Irish unions in Ireland. The amendment, as drafted, is to redress the balance in favour of Irish membership if it desires to amalgamate with a union with head offices in Ireland. I think that is as far as we may go.

Mr. Lenihan

It is a constitutional difficulty but I would make a very strong judgment in favour of Irish-based unions and the more strongly we move in favour of pushing legal and Constitutional provisions to the limit the better. I should like to pay a tribute here particularly to large Irish-based trade unions. They have always acted in a very responsible manner in regard to our national economy and its development. Any difficulties here have been caused in many cases by British-based trade unions making decisions for Irish members based on conditions and criteria perhaps not even relevant to British situations but even less relevant to our situations. They have tended to induce into the whole labour-management climate here a wrong approach. The Irish-based trade unions have almost always adopted a constructive national approach over the years. Subject, of course, to the limitations of the Constitution, I would go so far as possible to discriminate against British-based trade unions. I know this was attempted previously and we got into constitutional hot water. It is a wider issue than the issue in the Bill.

I welcome the Minister's amendment as a step in the right direction even if he is not making a value judgment. The power he is giving in this section means that Irish members of British-based trade unions have new power under this section to form a union of their own, and amalgamate, if they wish, with another Irish trade union. As Minister for Labour, the Minister cannot give his value judgment. But I hold a very strong view about the deleterious effect that British-based trade unions have had on the whole development of the trade union movement here and our whole national and economic development over the years. Anything that can be done to remedy this is welcome and I sincerely welcome this amendment for that reason. I should like to see it go further.

Mr. Kennedy

This amendment serves at least two purposes: first, it enables unions operating here to amalgamate or to transfer without the intervention of the massive British trade union forces which decide issues in Britain. In my opinion the second purpose is the more important, because it enables this to be done without creating any division inside the trade union movement. The unity of the trade union movement, North and South, has been one of the most encouraging signs despite the troubles in the North over the past few years. This amendment conserves that situation and will help to continue that very desirable state of affairs. I should like to thank the Minister on behalf of the trade union movement.

Amendment agreed to.

Sections 9 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Mr. Lenihan

I move amendment No. 4:

Before section 18 to insert a new section as follows:

"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".

We have had a very easy discussion heretofore on matters designed to improve the Bill. We now come to the section in which the Fianna Fáil Party, being representative of most trade unions in the country, feel very strongly. We wish to incorporate, before section 18, a new section which will provide that:

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 regard to the iniquity of the whole political fund system, I know this can be answered by saying that technically a member may opt out if he so wishes but everyone knows the reality and that people just do not opt out of things; they take the easy way out. When a political levy is collected automatically it takes a very courageous person to say to his shop steward or his branch secretary: "I do not want to pay a political levy and I refuse to pay it. I do not want it deducted." That sort of man or woman would be very exceptional. Technically, that is the stock answer to this situation. This levy is automatically collected and even though people say: "We do not like this; we do not agree with it; we never vote Labour, we vote Fianna Fáil, we vote Fine Gael, we vote Sinn Féin, but however let them have it.

There is no point in people telling me that the fund is available to trade union members who fight elections on their own as independents, or something like that because 90 per cent of this levy collected practically by coercion from workers who do not vote for the political party concerned, goes to finance a party which they do not support. That is the reality of the situation. I will not go into the rights or wrongs of it because it is quite evident where the right lies and it is equally evident where the wrong lies. It is wrong. It is right that people should opt to contribute for a particular political party or a particular purpose. It is right that, if trade unionsts opt to pay the political levy and contribute to the political fund, that they should so opt. It is not right, it is quite clearly wrong that they should be asked to opt out of a situation which has been created and set up for them.

Here we have not alone a totally wrong situation which already exists and is being allowed to continue but we have it compounded to a greater degree by actually prejudicing people who have never paid a political levy, people who are members of a trade union and who have not heretofore got a political fund. There are sensible trade unions who do not have a political fund and whose members do not pay a political levy. Along with this iniquitous system, to which we are totally opposed as a party and as a group and, indeed, as liberal citizens in a free community should be opposed, we have here now a situation where, if the minority amalgamating union has not got a political fund, has members who have never paid a political levy, the members of that minority union will be compelled by virtue of amalgamation to pay into the political fund of the majority trade union. I do not think the Minister can deny that that is precisely the situation.

I have spelled out in legal terms what the effect of this Bill will be if it becomes law in its present form and what we are seeking to do is to incorporate before section 18 a new section which will give to people who have heretofore not been obliged to pay this levy the elementary civic right to continue in that position after amalgamation takes place and not have imposed on them by reason of the amalgamation, which may be legitimate for trade union reasons, for economic reasons, or for reasons of rationalisation, a levy which they have never hitherto paid to a fund to which they have never hitherto subscribed on the basis of an amalgamation that may be eminently desirable on other grounds. I am sure in 99 per cent of such a minority union the reasons for the amalgamation will be reasons totally unrelated to the political fund and the political levy. They will be good trade union reasons, economic reasons and many other excellent reasons. Despite voting for amalgamation for these excellent reasons they will be walked into a position where, for the first time, they will be forced to pay a levy and forced to contribute to a fund which largely goes to fighting the election expenses of the Labour Party. The whole thing is wrong in principle. To have this in addition to a wrong principle is, in my view adding insult to injury in a situation which has been demonstrated quite clearly in the past to be wrong. There is apparently nothing we can do about it.

I do not pretend to be living in a land of angels. I am quite certain that trade unions that have a political fund and a political levy are not going to drop it. But why add this insult to people who were members of a union that never had such a fund and levy but who will now be forced to pay a levy by reason of an amalgamation to which they have agreed for reasons completely divorced from the whole question of politics. As a party representing the majority of trade unionists I cannot over-emphasise the importance of this amendment. It is quite clear that the vote the Fianna Fáil Party get at an election is obtained on the basis of the bulk of the votes of trade unionists. We get the majority of the votes of trade unions that are strongly represented here in Seanad Éireann and the Senators concerned are well aware of that. We have a strong moral duty to all trade union members and political supporters to ensure they are not further victimised by imposing this compulsion on them, a compulsion totally unrelated to the main purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Kennedy

I am totally opposed to the inclusion of this amendment. I am opposed to it because the rights of a trade union to establish a political fund and to use that fund in certain political ways, including the election of members of that union, were won at great cost over decades by British and Irish workers. I will not vote for anything that would change that situation. Apart from any other consideration, the political funds of the unions are not used exclusively as Senator Lenihan said. Many non-Labour candidates in every election are supported out of trade union political funds. Perhaps things have changed to some extent but, at any rate, we can say that the use of political funds by trade unions is governed by law while the use of political funds by some political parties and the making of political grants by industry and certain other sections of the community are not governed by any law.

Mr. Halligan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Kennedy

One would think, listening to Senator Lenihan, that trade unions have only one fund, a political fund. There are many funds in most trade unions—strike funds, provident funds, sickness funds, mortality funds—so why discriminate against the political fund? Is it intended, for instance, that if an amalgamating union have not a strike fund, on amalgamation the workers are automatically excluded from the strike fund or from any other fund? Why refer in this section only to the political funds and not to other funds? I am opposed to this proposed new section and I suggest to Senator Lenihan that he withdraw it. It is not in the interests either of the workers or of political parties that the rights of trade unions or members of a trade union to contribute to the political work of the trade union should be changed.

Mr. E. Ryan

I do not know whether Senator Kennedy is deliberately missing the point or ignoring the facts. Nobody denies the right of a trade union to have a political fund. What is objectionable, and Senator Kennedy knows this, is a situation where members of trade unions have to opt out of the levy. He knows, also, that there are many members of unions who do not support the Labour Party and who have no wish to contribute to a fund the greater bulk of which will go to the Labour Party. It is not a question of anybody denying the right of trade unions to have political funds. It is protesting against the fact that trade unions are raising funds and using them in a way with which the majority of the members disagree. On the other hand, members in many cases, for the reasons that Senator Lenihan has mentioned, do not bother to opt out or do not wish to opt out. That is the situation but it will add to the sense of resentment of many members if they are automatically brought into a situation that they were not in before.

If the Minister genuinely wants a measure which will facilitate and encourage amalgamations, he should not allow anything in this Bill that is likely to prevent that kind of amalgamation, anything that is likely to influence the vote of a member of a union who is in favour of amalgamation but is annoyed at the fact that it is going to have a certain effect that he objects to. If the Minister is genuine in wishing to encourage and facilitate amalgamations of this kind and if he wishes to know through the efforts he has put into the Bill, which is a worthwhile Bill, he should accept this amendment because the automatic imposition of the levy will be resented by many members of unions. Consequently, there is no reason why the Minister should not accept the amendment. It will not interfere with the effectiveness of this Bill in any way. In fact, it will add to the effectiveness of the Bill without doing any harm to anybody or interfering in any way with the right of trade unions to have political funds.

Mr. Harte

This amendment asks that the members of an amalgamated 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. This strikes me as being odd. If one of two unions, say the smaller union, happens to have a political fund and is transferring its engagement to the larger union which has no political fund, is the larger union to say to the smaller union: "We cannot take you because you have a political fund?" There is a double-edged argument here. One rule in any union group is that people have a right to opt out if they wish. All other rules must be by way of resolution first and, secondly, notices must be displayed and forms made available for people who wish to opt out. These are not confined to branch secretaries or to the general offices where the forms are available. I agree that possibly most members belong to the Fianna Fáil Party and I would not like to impose my political view on them. I have so far avoided that issue but I have evidence of where people who supported Fianna Fáil opted out of the fund.

Mr. Lenihan

They are the exceptions, though.

Mr. Harte

It should be understood that a resolution, which must be a resolution of the union, must be displayed for more than 12 months after being passed and that the nature of the form must be described to the people. It would appear in the light of that, that some bias has crept into this area, perhaps because of a misunderstanding of the total situation with regard to political funds. If any of the other funds should run into trouble, say the strike fund, the political fund would be taken over for the benefit of the strike fund. It is not the most important fund, probably the lightest one of them all.

Mr. Lenihan

I am glad to hear that.

Mr. Harte

If somebody sits down to negotiate and if the smaller union involved has a political fund and wishes to transfer its engagements to the other union, the other union cannot say: "You have no right to bring the political fund with you." Under their rules they would have passed a resolution and followed the prescribed procedure and the union taking on members would have no right to oppose this. This is one of the weaknesses in the argument. I will give you an example: I knocked at the door of a house in Kildare once and when the owner told me that he did not support Fianna Fáil I asked him whether he thought that the minority Opposition should have an opportunity. He said "yes". I replied that we needed funds to hold the election and would like his support. I got a few bob from him. If two bodies amalgamate it cannot automatically be assumed that a person has opted out because the amalgamation must be by resolution. The forms are available if a group decide to join a union and have a political fund. They can immediately decide en bloc if they wish to opt out.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

I just want to add a small point. I should like to join Senator Kennedy in asking that this amendment be withdrawn. I have had a fair amount of political experience and I can claim that our party also have the support of a considerable number of trade unionists. Senator Lenihan will probably agree with me in this, that by and large one finds the active trade unionist who is interested in politics is very often the person who will take on the field work of organisation in the political party of his choice. He seems to be particularly well-equipped for that type of work.

It is also true to say that our people, whatever particular economic strata they occupy, seem very politically conscious. That is a fact.

If Senator Lenihan looks further into the argument he has made he will see—I am sure he did not intend it in this way—that to argue that trade unionists who are politically conscious, who are actively interested in a political party other than the Labour Party would lack the moral courage of opting out. I do not believe that of the trade unionists here and certainly not of the politically active trade unionists. They are strong minded and have plenty of moral courage and guts. To suggest that it is necessary to bring in an oblique kind of protection to protect them against their own moral cowardice—although Senator Lenihan did not intend it in that way it seems to me to sum up the argument presented on behalf of this amendment—seems to be the height of insult to trade unionists. If Senator Lenihan ponders more deeply on that argument, he will see that there is a grain of truth in the criticism I am making. I know he did not intend it in that way but if he examines it he will see that it is open to that construction. I do not wish to put it any further.

Mr. M. O'Leary

For Senator Lenihan it was impossible to resist a discussion on a topic of this kind even though it has little to do with the Bill. He has resisted the tendency to stray away from the main effort and concern of the Bill which is to bring about amalgamation and transfer of engagements between unions. The concern is to eliminate or at least attempt to reduce the large number of unions catering for too small a group of workers. The consequence has been defective service for many categories of Irish workers contributed to in no small degree by the number of competing unions. Apart from Britain, we are alone in Western Europe in the number of unions competing for the same categories of membership. Only the member suffers from the service he gets as a result of that situation. That is the main thrust of this Bill.

It is noteworthy that when the Senator's party were in power, and they were in power for many years, they did not sensibly attempt to intervene in this area. They accepted the sense, as Senators have been saying, that this was an area where the politically interested member of a trade union, if his conscience did not go along with the contributions of his union to a particular party, is entitled to opt out. That position has obtained as far back as 1913. If the influence of the Senator's party is as extensive as he thinks within the trade union movement, there is no problem.

I agree that the whole question of how great an influence the wealthy have on our society, on a democratic society, is a big and interesting one. It has troubled philosophers for many years. The early philosophers wondered how the democracy may degenerate into an oligarchy and what provisions must be made to ensure that the State does not become merely the private family possession of the wealthy. I agree this is a very interesting subject but one that is not before us today.

When this matter was raised in the other House by members of the Senator's party I said I would be in favour of the State taking over the financing of political parties. If politics is group activity, if the way the citizen can improve the affairs of State is by joining open democratic parties, then the State should subsidise the parties which give the citizen the possibility of influencing the policies of the State. Until that happens we are left in the unsatisfactory situation that the wealthy may have an influence out of all proportion to the weight of their vote in our society by financing parties such as the Senator's own whom they financed in years past. The distinction must be made that, as Senator Kennedy said, the unions must report the political fund, the amounts involved in it, and the amounts contributed from that fund and they must be made available to the Registrar of Friendly Societies who publishes them annually. We have this great distinction between the funds available from unions to political parties and those from private sources. In one case there is a published account and on the other there is secrecy and the influence which goes with that kind of secrecy. The affairs of at least one great democracy were brought down to a low level by that kind of abuse in the matter of funds to political parties. I should like to see that avoided here but that is a subject and debate for another time.

This amendment is not particularly germane to the matters covered in this Bill. There is always the right of the individual concerned to opt out and there is no problem about that. In the other House, the point was made that persons who when they informed their shop-stewards of their intention to opt out of the union's political fund, were informed, Deputy Dowling said, that in the event of lay-offs and other difficulties they would not have the same protection as the member paying the political levy. I denied that there and I deny it now. It should be noted that under the 1913 Trade Union Act, which governs this area, a trade union with a political fund must adopt rules which must provide that a member who has opted out of the fund shall not be excluded from any benefits of the union or placed in any respect either directly or indirectly under any disability or at any disadvantage as compared with other members of the union. Anyone who feels that is not carried through has, of course, the right of complaint to the Registrar of Friendly Societies.

I should also like to make it clear that under the 1913 Act, which governs this area, where a trade union which has not got political objectives or funds amalgamates with a trade union which has, the members of the new amalgamated union must be given an opportunity of voting and passing a resolution on the adoption of political objectives and funds by the new amalgamated union.

In all these serious areas, there is ample provision already for opting out, and on agreement in amalgamation. What Senator Lenihan seeks to bring about is a change in an area previous Governments refused to intervene in. This amply covers the right of the individual to support the political party of his own convictions and to opt out if he so wishes. I appeal to Senator Lenihan to attempt to ensure that this Bill goes through without too much partisanship of a political kind being displayed by Senators, partisanship which has little to do with the main intent of the Bill.

Mr. Lenihan

On a point of correction, this has nothing to do with the situation as existed heretofore in regard to the political fund or political levy. I am practical about this. It has been there for a number of years, since 1913, in certain trade unions. Although we disagreed with it, we in Government never attempted to interfere with it and no Government have attempted to interfere with it. This amendment is not trying to interfere with it; it is not seeking to interfere with the situation where existing trade unions have traditionally a political levy or political fund towards the parliamentary Labour Party. This amendment is designed to protect the case of a union that has never had such a fund, whose members have never paid such a levy, and who now on amalgamation are being compelled to pay such a levy into such a fund which never existed in their case.

What is happening in this Bill is that a new situation is being created. I object to the political fund but I cannot propose in any positive form by way of legislation the elimination of the political fund as it exists. It exists, I do not think it is right or proper but it is there. I am not suggesting we can do anything about that but I suggest that we should not try to coerce people who have never paid and have never been obliged to pay this levy to do so now. Why, as a result of a legitimate amalgamation, for the very positive reasons which the Minister has mentioned, should they now be compelled to contribute to a political fund? That is the new situation which will be a consequence of the Minister's Bill. We are seeking to ensure by this amendment that it will not be a consequence of this Bill.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I would point out to the Senator that the persons concerned do have the opportunity, nor is it in the least abridged by the amalgamation procedure, of opting out. This matter has been considered by other bodies in the neighbouring island. The Donovan Commission considered this question of contracting out quite recently. They recommended that no change should be made in the practice of contracting out. They felt that the question of political funds was more a matter of politics than of industrial relations.

I am aware, of course, that in our own case no decision was taken to proceed in this area by previous Administrations. I am aware, from files in my own Department, that the then Minister for Labour, in September 1970, submitted a memorandum to the Government inviting the Government to discuss the question of amending the law relating to trade union political objectives and political funds. I know also that in November, 1970 this item was removed from the Cabinet agenda without further notice. I would suggest that the Senator should abide by the wisdom of that previous Administration and withdraw this amendment.

Mr. Lenihan

As one who is intimately associated with what might be regarded as the most poverty stricken of all the political parties, I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that I am extremely grateful indeed for this close attention to and his concern for political financing here. This is an interest I share and I would be glad to reciprocate such interest, provided it is applied equally to other ways of raising political finance. There is, for example, already on the Order Paper a Companies (Amendment) Bill, 1975, which, as I understand, will look at another area of the financing of political parties. I hope and pray that the same reforming zeal which has been evident on the Opposition benches here today will be equally evident when the Second Stage of this Bill is moved. I will be very interested to hear how people speak and also how they vote.

The Minister made a very important observation earlier. In this country we have politics on the cheap. There is no question about that. It is an affliction from which the three parties suffer. Instead of engaging in this partisan exchange about what is essentially a small matter we should be looking at the much wider context of the financing of political parties in general rather than creating a situation where parties must go cap in hand seeking finance from people who may later feel they have got some claim or influence over them. The Minister said the greatest democracy in the world was damaged at its very foundations by the abuse of political contributions. We have seen the most powerful democratically elected executive in the world humiliated beyond belief — humiliated in a fashion that no writer of fiction would ever have dared to invent in a novel or in a movie — because of the inevitable corruption that arises out of political financing done in secret and, in particular, done by big business in the hope that they will eventually reap a financial reward.

In so far as the trade union movement is concerned, as the Minister has pointed out over and over again, the difference between a company, whether it be public or private, and a trade union is this; whatever the trade union expends on political purposes is regulated by law and must be recorded and submitted to the registrar. We in turn, submit to our own party conference and to the public details of every penny received and expended by us. The same type of regulation should apply right across the board. It should apply to all parties. Perhaps political parties should be required by law to indicate, in a very detailed manner, where they get their political finances and how they are expended. For example as one Party does, there is no point in showing in a global fashion "Income is so much and here is how it is expended". It might be wiser to have it regulated by law that political parties would have to explain in great detail the sources of their finances so that the public could be assured that nobody is trying to abuse the influence that might attend with the presentation of finances.

Therefore, this amendment raises much wider issues, although I can understand the temptation of the Opposition to introduce it. The Minister has, however, correctly positioned the Bill within the context of his own reforming programme and labour law. He has indicated the major purposes of the Bill. He said that in reality this is an unassociated appendage which has been introduced for a partisan reason. Its introduction has destroyed what was a very constructive and amicable debate which the Leader of the Opposition adverted to when he got up, almost in an apologetic fashion, to introduce this amendment.

It should be left aside and withdrawn. If the Opposition wish to debate the whole question of the financing of political parties, I can assure them that they will find on this side of the House very willing cooperators indeed. We will be prepared to lay all our cards on the table, and our bank statements as well.

Mr. Harte

I am puzzled. How can one give people the right in a ballot to vote on about five different funds which exist and to opt out of one of the funds, while having that right to vote on every one of them? It does not seem to be consistent. When the amalgamation takes place members of the two unions will be voting together. They will be voting on the new rules drawn up, the funds which exist and so on. After having their say, how can you allow them to say: "We vote in favour of the provident fund, the strike fund, the general purposes fund, the sick fund, but opt out of the other fund." All the funds are put there by resolution and after democratic discussion of the resolution at conference. Therefore, it would not be practical to put that as a pre-condition in any enabling legislation. The whole measure could be defeated on a ballot vote. If a man can vote on all these rules, amendments and everything else, what is the position? He still has the right to opt out. Therefore, I cannot see where the problem lies.

Mr. Lenihan

The purpose of amalgamation, which is the main objective of the Bill, would be precipitated if this contentious matter was removed. If the voters of the minority union were allowed to vote for the rules and everything agreed upon in regard to the amalgamation, but not on the political levy, on amalgamation they would have the right to opt in but they would be deemed, as the amendment suggests, to have opted out as is the position in many trade unions at the moment. These members of the minority would be deemed to have opted out voluntarily as has been their position heretofore when they did not have a political fund and did not pay a political levy.

That matter, as Senator Harte rightly said, should not form part of the voting in regard to amalgamation. That would not be one of the rules under voting for amalgamation. It would be a separate matter after amalgamation in which each trade unionist within the minority union would have the right to opt in to pay the political levy to the political fund of the new amalgamated trade union.

Mr. Harte

I want to put one point. "Option" means an individual right. If you draw up a trade union agreement for someone and put an individual into it, you will look for the right for him to opt out. If you start talking about the right of people to opt out in bulk, some of whom might want to remain in——

Mr. Lenihan

They would have the right——

Mr. Harte

No. The Senator said the unions should be deemed to have opted out because there is no political fund.

Mr. Lenihan

My point is that the amendment deems that in regard to the amalgamating minority trade unions that never had a trade union fund, each member shall be deemed on amalgamation to have opted out of such fund. That does not prevent the individual members of that minority trade union on amalgamation from opting into this political fund. If the whole lot of them want to pay the political fund on amalgamation they can do so, but they are deemed to have opted out until they decide individually themselves democratically to opt in and to pay the levy to the fund.

Mr. E. Ryan

Senator Harte suggested that this is creating a new situation and asked should the members of the unions who are thinking of amalgamating have the option to opt out of the various other funds. That is obviously not possible. The law already provides for opting out of the political fund.

We are not suggesting anything new. We are merely saying that, in accordance with the law which provides for the opting out of the political fund, in certain circumstances a member shall be deemed to have opted out. It is a question of deeming to be opting in at the moment. We are up against a practical proposition and I am sure everybody in this House knows perfectly well the practical situation we are discussing here today: that where there is a political fund there are a great many members of the union who do not support the Labour Party and for one reason or another do not opt out even though they do not support the Labour Party. That is the practical situation we are dealing with and which this amendment is trying to remedy.

We are not being unconstructive. We are being constructive. We agree with this Bill. We think it is a very good Bill and we are completely in favour of what it is trying to do. What we are suggesting is something that will be constructive and ensure that the encouragement and facilities given by this Bill will be availed of and that particular union members who might be very anxious and enthusiastic about a particular amalgamation will not be discouraged from voting in favour of the amalgamation by reason of the fact that they will find themselves involved in a political fund which they do not want to be involved with. This is a constructive and helpful amendment and it is dealing with the practical situation of which we are all fully aware.

I ask the Minister, if he is really fully in favour of this Bill — I have no doubt that he is — to accept a constructive amendment which will ensure that the facilities available in the Bill will be availed of by members of unions who might otherwise be inclined not to vote in favour of amalgamation.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Just to sum up, because we will have to come to some conclusion, I do not propose to accept the amendment. I think the Bill, as drafted, meets the legitimate concern of Senators that the democratic decision reached will be fair to all concerned. It is fair, as I pointed out already, in the sense that if one of the unions do not have a political fund there is this opportunity given to vote in the amalgamated situation and of giving an authentic verdict to them whether a fund should be set up for the new situation. All would be able to vote and if the vote was against the minority they would have the opportunity, if their convictions were strong enough to opt out. If the Senators opposite are right in the power and influence of their organisation in the trade union movement they have no problem.

In talking about this question of financing of political parties I would say that we should consider again how the State could subsidise the political parties representing both Houses of the Oireachtas. This is a serious subject and one that would merit serious consideration with legal back-up. The present Administration would look with very great interest at any all-party proposals along those lines. The chief means of influencing State policy by citizens is by membership of political parties and if the open democratic parties are the main agencies through which State policy may be influenced then citizens should have the opportunity of knowing the policies of the parties concerned. Those policies should be available in well printed booklets throughout the country so that citizens could come to a democratic decision on the merits or demerits of political parties.

I would say to the Senators opposite that while their private funds may have been sufficient up to now, they will find in the years ahead that these funds decline, and it behoves all parties, especially those in Opposition, to consider the wisdom of that proposal of mine. Certainly it is also for the good of democracy that the State should subsidise open democratic parties. Democratic parties cannot raid banks for funds. We must collect by voluntary means. It seems to me that it is a disservice to democracy in the State, that the policies of the political parties which citizens support, or otherwise, should be dependent on the goodwill of a minority. I would say to Senators who may be alarmed at the amount of funds that were coming to one political party, the Labour Party, from trade unions that the figures involved were very small indeed. Not such as to cause the kind of scandal that we have seen in by-elections in previous years about the amount spent by political parties in pursuit of one-Member campaigns. The party opposite in their hey-day in Government lost more in petty change in their party accounts than we have received from the trade unions in the last ten years. I will not accept the amendment.

Mr. E. Ryan

It is the principle of the thing.

Mr. Dolan

I just want to add my voice in protest in this matter. I have been a member of a trade union since I first got employment and I know of many others in the same position, and I resent this built-in condition in membership of having to contribute to a fund in which they do not believe. It may be all right for the Labour Party to use this slick method to augment their own funds and to build up tremendous assets for their own benefit. We should encourage people to become members of trade unions but we should not impose any condition such as this on them.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

I do not think the acceptance of this amendment will encourage even one person to join the trade union movement. There are a big number of trade unions in this country who have no political fund and do not subscribe to the Labour Party or to any other party. It is rather strange that on many occasions people who are on the executive of unions deal with the problems of people leaving the union that have not a political fund and joining the union that have a political fund. That is happening every day of the week. Therefore I do not think that the argument that has been advanced and the amount of time that has been spent on this argument today has been really worth it because nobody is concerned with a levy of a penny or twopence a week for the political fund. It would not entice one more member into the trade union movement if this were abolished tomorrow.

Mr. Lenihan

Ironically, I agree with Senator Fitzgerald that a number of the smaller trade unions around the country do not have the political levy.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

And some of the bigger ones——

Mr. Lenihan

Ironically, the biggest union in the country that commands the greatest number of Fianna Fáil supporters does have a political levy, does have a political fund. I am putting it here in an open democratic forum that we get this, we as a party and every one of the members of our party get this regularly at our meetings. Senator Fintan Kennedy is not here but Senator Halligan and the Minister are and they are members of the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union, the largest union in the country, and 90 per cent of the members of that union who are forced to pay a levy to the political fund are supporters of Fianna Fáil and are cumainn secretaries, cumainn chairmen, officers, militants, canvassers and workers for us. I can tell the members of the Labour Party that we get the stick regularly about this and we are going to express that by voting on this amendment.

The Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 22.

Tá

Brennan, John J.
Browne, Patrick (Fad).
Cowen, Bernard.
Dolan, Seamus.
Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
Garrett, Jack.
Lenihan, Brian.
McGlinchey, Bernard.
McGowan, Patrick.
Ryan, Eoin.

Níl

Blennerhassett, John.
Boland, John.
Burton, Philip.
Butler, Pierce.
Kennedy, Fintan.
Kerrigan, Patrick.
Lyons, Michael Dalgan.
McAuliffe, Timothy.
McCartin, John Joseph.
McGrath, Patrick W.
Mannion, John M.
Deasy, Austin.
Fitzgerald, Jack.
Halligan, Brendan.
Harte, John.
Markey, Bernard.
Moynihan, Michael.
O'Brien, Andy.
Russell, George Edward.
Sanfey, James W.
Walsh, Mary.
Whyte, Liam.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Garrett and Cowen; Níl, Senators Sanfey and Halligan.

Amendment declared lost.

Section 18 agreed to.

SCHEDULE.

Amendment No. 5, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Business suspended at 5.35 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.

Seanad Éireann debate - Tuesday, 25 Mar 1975

Trade Union Bill, 1974: Committee and Final Stages.

Tá

Níl

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Mar 1975