Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 May 1976

Vol. 84 No. 1

Industrial Relations Bill, 1975: Second Stage.

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

Minister for Lands (Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick, Cavan)

This Bill is primarily designed to establish, under the aegis of the Labour Court, a joint labour committee for agricultural workers. The proposed committee will have responsibility for the future regulation of the rates of pay and conditions of employment of agricultural workers. Approximately 34,000 such workers will come within the ambit of the new committee.

As I mentioned when the Bill was before the Dáil, this is the first significant legislative measure to be introduced by a Government for the improvement of the general conditions of agricultural workers since the Agricultural Wages Act was passed back in 1936. The implementation of the provisions of this Bill will result in the replacement of the Agricultural Wages Board, established under the 1936 Act, by a joint labour committee. The basis of representation on this committee will ensure the co-operation of agricultural employer and worker interests in determining the future pay and conditions of agricultural workers.

In recent years there have been many complaints that the pay and conditions of employment of agricultural employees have been allowed to fall behind the standards obtaining in other employments. The new Bill should help to remedy the causes of these complaints as it provides, in effect, that agricultural workers shall be brought within the scope of the machinery operating in industry for the regulation of pay and conditions of employment. The joint labour committee system of negotiating the pay and working conditions of an industry already operates in respect of 42,000 industrial workers through the medium of 21 joint labour committees. The new joint labour committee will, no doubt work towards achieving a greater harmonisation between the pay and conditions of agricultural workers and those of other industrial employees.

Senators will not need to be reminded of the continuing decline in the numbers working on the land which poses a threat to the future prosperity of the agricultural sector. The higher wages and better conditions prevailing in industry have undoubtedly been significant factors in accelerating this "flight from the land". If therefore this drift is to be halted, or at least reduced, it is clear that the remuneration and conditions of agricultural workers must be brought into line with those obtaining in the industrial sector. I believe that the new joint labour committee will have an important role to play in this area.

While agricultural workers have in the past had access to the Labour Court in the event of a trade dispute, they have been generally excluded from the scope of the Industrial Relations Acts which provide the legal framework for the establishment of joint labour committees. The Bill rectifies this position and provides that in future agricultural workers will have full access to the machinery of the Labour Court for the negotiation of their pay and working conditions. Agricultural workers will also be enabled in future to be parties to registered agreements relating to wages and conditions of employment and will be included among the classes of workers in respect of which joint industrial councils may be registered with the Labour Court.

A few remarks about the structure of joint labour committees may be helpful to Senators at this point. A joint labour committee comprises a chairman and two independent members appointed by the Minister for Labour. It also has an equal number of members nominated by the two sides of industry. The chairman has a casting vote in the event of deadlock. Orders by the Labour Court settling the statutory minimum wages and conditions of employment in an industry are made on the basis of proposals emanating from the appropriate joint labour committee. The rates of pay and other conditions agreed upon by both sides and set down in an employment regulation order are legally enforceable.

I have just described the normal composition of a joint labour committee. Following detailed consultation with the various interested parties I have agreed to certain modifications of the normal manner of appointment of members to a joint labour committee in the case of the proposed committee for agricultural workers. The Bill provides that the chairman and independent members of the proposed joint labour committee for agricultural workers will be appointed by me only after consultation with, and with the agreement of, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. Two panels for the selection of employer and worker members of the committee shall be prepared following consultation with the relevant employer/ worker interests and these shall be subject to consultation with, and the agreement of, the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.

The Labour Court will continue to retain its statutory function of making the actual appointments. This modification of the normal procedure was necessary to meet the reservations of the farming organisations without whose co-operation the joint labour committee could not be set up. The workers' organisations have raised no objections to this proposed arrangement. As the new joint labour committee will cover so many workers, 34,000, it is only prudent that both the Ministers for Labour and for Agriculture and Fisheries should have sight of the panels before they are submitted to the Labour Court for the making of the appointments.

The Bill provides for the abolition of the agricultural wages board as on and from the making by the Labour Court of the first employment regulation order setting standards under the new system. The general inspectorate of the Department of Labour will from that time have responsibility for the enforcement of the provisions of employment regulation orders emerging from the committee. During the passage of the Bill through the Dáil I introduced amendments broadening the definition of "agriculture" so as to clarify that workers employed in horticulture, poultry farming, racing stables and stud farms and in gardens and sports grounds will be covered by the terms of the new joint labour committee.

The Agricultural Wages Board have hitherto been responsible for enforcing the holiday entitlements of agricultural workers which are provided for under a number of Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Acts. It is my intention to exercise the powers already vested in me under sections 2 and 14 of the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, to provide that agricultural workers will be brought within the scope of that Act by regulation.

The recent widening range of worker protection legislation has imposed a heavy additional burden of work on the Labour Court. For example, the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Act, 1974, provides for adjudication by the court on cases arising from the submission of equal pay claims, and the Anti-Discrimination (Employment) Bill will give an important role to the court in adjudicating on disputes about equal treatment of men and women in relation to employment. The Bill before the House will of course provide extra work for the court. In addition to the work arising from the legislative measures referred to, the court has had to deal with an expanding volume of work in other areas. I might mention in this regard that I made more extensive use of section 24 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, than any of my predecessors and the work load of the court has of course also increased substantially due to its role in relation to the national agreements. The number of recommendations on disputes issued by the court has increased considerably in recent years from a total of 232 in 1972 to 395 in 1975. It has become evident that the early appointment of at least one additional division of the court is desirable in order to equip the court to deal more effectively with its increasing workload. The court at present operates in three divisions and I introduced an amendment to the Bill in the Dáil to facilitate the appointment by order of additional divisions of the court. An expanded court will ensure the continuance of an efficient service by the court.

The Bill makes special provision for the establishment of the joint labour committee for agricultural workers immediately after enactment of the Bill, thus dispensing in the interests of urgency with the time-consuming consultations normally involved prior to the making of an establishment order. I expect therefore to see the new joint labour committee in operation in the very near future.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. E. Ryan

This Bill is acceptable to Members on this side of the House. It appears to be a common-sense development of the system of joint labour committees in the industrial sphere. The joint labour committees in that sphere appear to have worked well over the years. In the circumstances there was a good case for extending them to the agricultural sphere. Of course, the fact that they worked well in industry does not necessarily mean the same arguments in their favour apply to agriculture, but certainly they seem to apply and the experiment is at least worth trying.

It is in particular a good development that there will now be access to the Labour Court in a variety of circumstances which employees in the agricultural sphere did not enjoy up to now. Again, this is a common-sense development provided for in the Bill.

The point has been made that this Bill will be brought into operation very quickly, as provided for under section 4, without some of the procedures which were necessary up to now. Section 5 will to some extent take away from the advantages of section 4 because the consultations necessary, the consultations by the Minister with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, and the fact that the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries must vet the proposed panel members suggested by both the unions and the agricultural organisations is bound to take a certain amount of time and will modify the advantages provided for in section 4. However that is only a matter of detail, and I presume in due course that suggestions for the panel will be made and accepted by the Minister concerned and then the provisions of the Bill can be tried out in practice. Generally speaking, we welcome the Bill and wish it well.

Mr. Dolan

This is a good Bill. It replaces the previous Bill which was in operation for a long period, since 1936. It is only proper that workers, whether they are in agriculture or industry, should have comparable conditions of employment. There is at present a vast difference between the two categories in the matter of wages and hours of work. As regards agricultural workers, there must be a type of partnership between the farm worker and the farmer. The same sort of relationship does not exist in any other industry. If a cow is calving, if cattle have broken loose or any other emergency occurs it is reasonable to expect the farm worker to assist the farmer, even though it might be finishing time. As a rural Deputy, I can see a vast difference in the type of work done. I do not know whether AnCO and other organisations have given much thought to the training necessary. County committees of agriculture often find it difficult to get farmers and potential workers to undertake the type of training necessary. Unless he is born and reared on a farm it is difficult to adapt to the life. His knowledge cannot be gleaned from books; it must be gained by experience and tradition. He must have knowledge of sudden illness that can attack his cattle or sheep and of when it is necessary to call in the vet or the AI man.

There must be liaison between the farm worker and the farmer and, as far as I know, this liaison usually exists. We have many different types of farmers. In many cases, and particularly in my own constituency, if farmers are obliged to pay the statutory agricultural wage all the year around they might be forced to sell their farms. At present the position in the agricultural industry is not all that could be desired. The Common Market has caused tremendous improvements and diversified the markets. People have come to realise that many workers are employed in industries ancillary to agriculture. The farmers and their workmen are producing the raw materials for thousands of workers.

Often the farmer and the farm worker is looked down on. The élite recoil in holy horror if they see a man with mud on his boots. They forget that we are all made of clay anyway. Those with a higher standard of education seem to despise the agricultural worker and the small farmer. They regard them as people of an inferior class of society. This attitude must change because agriculture is our principal industry. A farmer employing a worker must be put in the position where he can pay him the standard agricultural wage and give him a decent standard of living. There should also be some kind of rotation system whereby if the farmer wanted to take a day off there would be a pool of workers he could draw from. Those engaged in manufacturing industries can arrange for substitutes to take over from them at times of illness or annual holidays.

At one time many farmers were reluctant to pay their workmen. The workers were usually engaged at a hiring fair and they had no conditions of service set down for them. They had no rights at all. "Spalpeens" was the name given to them in the Irish language.

The modern farm worker is often very highly skilled. I should like to see them being taken to the Spring Show where they could examine the latest farm machinery and receive information on the various exhibits. Particular care should be devoted to the design of farm machinery because of the tremendous hazard to operators. I refer in particular to tractors, safety cabs, bailers and so on. These are used extensively on modern farms, but they are often used indiscriminately and without sufficient care. Unfortunately every year there are from 20 to 30 people killed by tractors because they are not fitted with safety cabs. Many are also killed by being caught in tow bars and in several other ways. Most of these accidents could be avoided if the men were more familiar with the handling of machines. Manufacturers of farm machinery should be subjected to close scrutiny by the Institute for Industrial Research and Standards, or some other body, to ensure that machines are not sold to young people who may be more dare-devil than their elders. Manufacturers should be obliged to ensure that safety attachments are provided on their machines and full instructions should be set out for their use.

There is a serious decline in the number of people working on farms. Agricultural production has increased because of improved mechanism. The numbers engaged in farming have decreased because there is too much competition. Farmers have been badly treated over the years in regard to the payment of rates and now they are being charged income tax. There seem to be two different standards being applied, one for farmers and the other for those engaged in industry. Yet the farmer is a type of factory owner. Even though he may be working in a small way he is supplying raw materials for other industries which keep thousands of workers in employment.

City dwellers, in particular, think the farmers live in luxury. They think they are wealthy men who attend the races a couple of days a week and lie in bed for the rest of the time. That is a completely false image of the majority of our farmers. By and large, they are hardworking people who toil right around the clock in many instances. They have a hard and lonely life, a life for which they must have a certain liking. Because land is fetching a good price at present people think that farming is a luxury. But usually the farmer cannot sell his land because it is his only asset. Anyway, with inflation at its present rate the money he would get for it would not provide him with even frugal comfort.

Many direct and indirect factors influence the agricultural situation, including EEC Directives Nos. 159 and 161. Farmers are being encouraged to retire at a certain age to enable others to buy their land, but we must think very seriously about these directives. What might suit other EEC countries might not necessarily be suitable for Irish conditions. I have no time for the inefficient farmer, the man who is lazy and who lets his land go to rack and ruin, but there are not many of that type. We will probably have a considerable redistribution of land because it is becoming more valuable every year.

In many areas far too much land is given over to forestry. The employment content on it is nothing like the employment content we could achieve if that land were used for farming, particularly if modern techniques and machinery were used. We have come a long way from the time when a wealthy farmer provided a labourer's cottage for his workman and gave him a few gallons of milk and a bag of spuds in lieu of wages. We are glad that the worker is now independent and can consider himself equal to his employer. At one time it was argued that the farm worker had to pay income tax when his employer was not taxed. I do not want that situation to obtain. If a farmer is making big profits it is right that he should be taxed, but he should not be subject to both a rating system and an income tax code. He should be treated with equality. If he is liable to pay tax, make him pay.

Although the numbers of people working and living on the land have declined, the produce being produced from the land has increased immensely. I would venture to say that millions of pounds worth of exports from my constituency go from Killeshandra through the ports. That is because of the efficiency of the farmers in the area who work hard in the milk-producing and pig-producing areas. There is great potential here for the expansion in agricultural production because of our climate and our facilities. We are far too hasty in taxing the farmer. We should provide sufficient capital to encourage more farmers to develop their farms and employ an extra man. With the advent of more up-to-date machinery we could find that it would take much more money to put a man into industry than it would to put a man working on a farm. That is of immense importance because when one man is given a job on a farm he is producing raw material that could put four or five men working in industry. That is more important than spending £5,000 putting a man into an industry that may fold up after a few years.

There will be another opportunity for examining the various sections in the Bill. As a member of a union I have always believed it is better for workers to be in their respective unions and easier for employees and industrialists to have negotiations with organised trade unions provided the unions can be controlled. It is an orderly way of getting things done. This Bill will ensure that the workers will get their rights and it will be seen that they are getting their rights. I hope it will renew confidence in working on the land and, in doing so, those who are trained by AnCO or receive third level education will recognise and realise that the man who works on the land is just as important or more important than those working anywhere else.

Mr. Whyte

I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill. So far as it will improve the conditions of those working in agriculture it is to be welcomed. Unfortunately there are very few agricultural workers on the land at the moment. This is to be regretted. It is, of course, essential that agricultural workers should get a reasonable return for their labours. The standard of living of many agricultural workers is not as good as one would wish. If we tackle this problem by imposing conditions that obtain in industry on people working on the land we will be approaching this problem from the wrong angle. Very often what is important to those working in industry is not important to those working in agriculture. It is a matter of job satisfaction really and a reasonable standard of living, freedom to work when they like and often how they like. They have to have many skills and be prepared to devote a great deal of time, maybe six, seven or eight hours, to a particular job. They have to be on call the same as professional people. If we try to impose industrial conditions on these people we may well be making a mistake.

There is scope to employ more people on the land. Possibly the input to provide jobs on the land would be much smaller than the input which must be found to employ people in industry. If we were to devote greater attention to employment on the land it might pay off in the long run. There are many small farmers who could be engaging in some kind of farm modernisation scheme, such as building a pig unit or a fattening unit for calves. If an extra man is employed on a job like that he would not be able to work a straight six or eight hours a day. It could entail his working irregular hours maybe seven days a week. If we try to improve the conditions of those employed in agriculture by imposing conditions that are satisfactory in industry we may be making a mistake. We should devote greater attention to seeting what can be done to employ more people on the land and, if we can achieve that, we shall be doing a good job. In so far as the Bill seeks to improve the conditions of those employed on the land it is a good piece of legislation. I hope it will result in the employment of agricultural workers and I welcome it for that reason.

Mr. J. Fitzgerald

I congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill which gives some recognition at last to the part played by agricultural workers down through the years. For far too long agricultural workers have been the Cinderella of the work force in this country. They never benefited under wage agreements and as a result, they have fallen far behind other workers in somewhat comparable employment in industry, such as council workers, forestry workers and Bord na Móna and Land Commission employees. Their wages were negotiated by what was known as the Agricultural Wages Board and it can be truthfully said that for a long number of years the agricultural worker got a raw deal. I am sure the Minister will be remembered by the agricultural workers as the Minister who tried to do something positive to take them out of that position.

A minimum rate was laid down by the Agricultural Wages Board. It varied from area to area. There were three different area rates. Those in Dublin county, part of County Meath and parts of Kildare and Wicklow benefited by being in the highest rated area. They also benefited because they were very close to the capital where there was alternative employment. As a result many very skilled agricultural workers had to be paid a rate by their employers far above the rate laid down by the Agricultural Wages Board to enable them to hold on to their men. In other areas the workers were not so fortunate. The minimum rate laid down by the Agricultural Wages Board became the maximum rate and these agricultural workers had to work long hours for a very low rate of wages. I do not contribute to the argument which seemed to be running through the speeches I heard today about ability to pay. There can be no question that any farmer employing a worker will be able to pay him the new rate laid down in the Bill.

I welcome the Bill and, like the agricultural workers, I welcome the demise of the Agricultural Wages Board which did not serve the agricultural workers too well.

Mr. Kennedy

I too wish to congratulate the Minister on introducing this Bill. It demonstrates clearly that from now on workers in agriculture will have exactly the same rights in industrial relations as workers in the manufacturing and service industries. On the other hand, it establishes and indicates, again quite clearly, that from now on agricultural employers will have to exercise the same responsibility as employers in other areas.

The most satisfying feature of this Bill is something that is not in the Bill at all. I refer to the fact that the Minister has been able to secure the agreement of both farmers and workers to the provisions of the Bill. That is satisfactory. It is good for the farming industry. It is good for the workers and for the community generally. It is certainly good for the country that all concerned in agriculture should set this example, an example in co-operation at a time when the economy certainly needs the highest possible degree of co-operation on the part of all sections of the community. I congratulate the Minister on introducing a measure which has the full support of all sections of the community.

Mr. McCartin

I, too, welcome this measure. I do not speak for farmers in an area where a great many agricultural labourers are employed. In fact in the part of the country I represent most farmers do their own work. There is no question of farm labourers being any significant percentage of the electorate. Nevertheless, I believe farm labourers have been the Cinderella of our labour force in the past. I do not think this was so because of the attitude of the farmer as an employer or because we had harder conditions in agriculture. There was, in fact, a very special relationship between the farmer and his employee, a relationship one did not get in industry generally. On most farms you had the farmer and perhaps one or two people working with him. In my experience, the farmer and his workers worked as equals. There was a better relationship between them than there was generally between employee and employer.

The farmer will recognise that this is progressive legislation and legislation that was overdue. I hope it will change the attitude of some people to what is essentially a very serious problem in agriculture. Somebody mentioned that there should be no question of inability to pay. Food prices have gone up in recent years but I cannot understand people in urban areas who say —sometimes these things are said maliciously for political advantage— farmers never had it so good and that prices have rocketted for the farmer. This is not the case. Only a very small percentage of the increased price that the housewife has to pay has gone back to the farmer.

The situation of a farmer as an employer is not as happy as it is in industry. We have the figures for the farm modernisation scheme to support this. A target of £36 a week has been set by the farm modernisation scheme to be achieved over the next two years by a farmer who, with the best advice available to him, plans to progress. Only a very small percentage so far have been able to plan to achieve that target. This is sufficient indication that as an income earner agriculture is not a good business to be in. Nevertheless, I would say the agricultural worker, like the farmer himself, has compensation by way of job satisfaction. I believe the farmer and the farm worker in the past worked longer hours, produced more and got a lower return than did those in any other sector because, in other sectors, the lines were laid down and, if you could not achieve the target, you went out of business. The farmer often worked for one or two years for half the income the industrial workers got. Farmers and the farm employees did this in the past but I believe that their lot was not as unhappy as some people might think. The measure of job satisfaction that was enjoyed by them compensated for many of the disadvantages they suffered.

I welcome the Bill. I believe it is welcomed by all progressive farmers who hope that in the future there will not be any question of the farmer and the farm worker having to take less than their counterparts in industry. Should a situation arise in future where agriculture is not an industry that gives a proper return to the employer and the employee it is only natural too that the losses should be shared by both employer and employee.

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

I want to thank Senators who have spoken on this measure and to apologise that I could not be here myself for the whole debate. I have however some notes on the points made. The debate has followed the same pattern as it did in the other House. There has been a general welcome on both sides for the provisions of this Bill. There is a clear recognition on the part of the Senators that there is need to end the disparity that exists between those who work on the land and those who work in industry. This is a matter the farmers and their employees in this new joint committee will tackle together. Their separation from the rest of the workers must be ended and the ending of that division should be brought about quickly. That is a matter for the two sides in the joint labour committee.

Senator Ryan was worried whether the consultations with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries might constitute an unnecessary delay in the setting up of the joint labour committee. The provisions in this legislation actually mark a change from the usual procedures in setting up a joint labour committee and that should result in a speeding up of the establishment of the joint labour committee. We are anxious to have the committee set up as rapidly as possible. Senator Ryan will appreciate —this was a point referred to by Senator Kennedy—that it was necessary to get the agreement of the farming interests. Obviously legislation of this kind cannot have happy consequences if it is introduced against the opposition of either side in the joint labour committee. I am happy to say that we have had co-operation and, to achieve that co-operation, there has to be a place for the Ministry of Agriculture because of its close connection with farmers. That is the reason why the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries is referred to in this legislation.

Senator Jack Fitzgerald referred to the divisions which still exist. Farmers accept it is not possible to get employees of the right standard who will stay in agriculture unless conditions more and more approach those obtaining in industry. It is not possible any longer to get people to work under disparate conditions and at a different wage rate from those obtaining generally in industry. Remember, manufacturing industry is now more generally dispersed throughout the country. The old divisions between town and country are, fortunately or unfortunately, fast disappearing. No longer can we get operatives who over a long period will accept conditions that differ radically from those of their brothers, cousins or friends in urban factory employment. That is the prevailing reason which brought about agreement between farmers and workers for the establishment of this joint labour committee. We want the joint labour committee to meet as rapidly as possible, discuss their programme of work and see to it that this Bill plays a part in ensuring that this most important industry, agriculture, which has a very bright future in terms of the European Economic Community, is served by a contented workforce, a workforce with more and more skills. This Bill should assist in ensuring that that workforce remains on the land, serving the community in general and the national interest.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.