It appears to me that amendment No. 6 in the name of the Minister meets amendment No. 5 to some extent and, perhaps, it would be desirable to discuss them together.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 5:—
In sub-section (1), paragraph (vi), to delete all words after " undertaking " in line 40 to the end of the paragraph.
In submitting this amendment originally, the purpose was, first, to get clarification, and secondly, to deal with the position which the paragraph seems to exclude. We have in some of the large-scale transport undertakings persons employed whole-time on the cleaning, washing and running-repairs of vehicles and locomotives, and as the paragraph stands it would appear that they would be excluded under it. I can see no good reason for that and that was the purpose of putting down the amendment. The ministerial amendment seeks to meet it on the basis that the exclusion would apply only to those on a part-time basis, but again it gives rise to difficulties, I think, because a person may be full-time employed and yet not be engaged whole-time on the operations listed here. To that extent, it would appear as if there would be some doubt as to whether he would be entitled to the protection of the Act or not. I am some what at a loss as to why the exclusion was provided in the first place.
In the first instance, the exclusion was provided because of a fear that by including such places we would be spreading the net too wide in making factories out of places where the delivery vans of commercial firms were merely housed and perhaps occasionally washed and perhaps had some small repairs carried out on them. I accept the position that the factory laws should apply to premises where persons are regularly employed on the maintenance of the transport equipment of industrial and commercial concerns and the amendment which I submit goes as far as I think it is possible to go for practical reasons to meeting the point of view the Deputy's amendment has in view.
Mr. Lemass
I would agree with that view. It seems to me that if you merely delete the words as proposed, you could cover perhaps the garage of a private house if that garage were used by a commercial traveller and require it to have heating, drainage and all the other facilities prescribed for factories. It seems to me that it would be sufficient to bring within the scope of the Bill places where people are whole-time permanently employed.
I agree that it would spread the net very far although there is a fairly wide area to be covered because there are not only the locomotive sheds where locomotives are washed and cleaned and also large scale garages of large transport concerns but many of the ordinary industrial and manufacturing concerns maintaining full-time garages where full-time operations on transport fleets are carried on. The doubt I have is in regard to the phrasing of the ministerial amendment, as to whether or not it might be argued whether a person was employed full-time on general maintenance duties, but would not come within the scope of the amendment because he was not employed full-time on the actual duties specified. Possibly if the Minister would have a further look at the phrasing of the amendment he might find it possible to meet the situation. There are many other duties a man would be required to do in a garage of that type other than washing, cleaning and repairing.
Perhaps we could use some such phrase as " for a substantial period ".
Something of that nature.
Mr. Lemass
I would suggest the limitation " in which not less than two or three persons are employed "—a place where a motor vehicle used in connection with a commercial undertaking is washed and cleaned.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In sub-section (1), page 9, line 43, to insert " and in which persons are not employed on a full-time basis in such cleaning, washing, repairing and adjusting " after " out ".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:—
To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—
" (10) (1) For the purpose of this sub-section ‘commercial work' means work of a clerical nature or work done for or in connection with the sale, wholesale, of any articles.
(2) The Minister may make special regulations requiring that certain provisions of this Act shall have effect in respect of premises in which, or within the close or curtilage or precincts of which, persons are employed in commercial work."
It will be recalled that in the course of the Second Reading a question was raised as to the desirability and the possibility of extending at least the power of the Minister to make regulations towards persons employed in work of a clerical nature. The difficulties were pointed out both by the present Minister and his predecessor—not only difficulties in regard to extending the present Bill to cover these types of employees but the fact that it was entering into an entirely new field which had not been very largely explored in this or other countries up to the present. There was a suggestion put forward in the course of the Second Reading by the Minister that, having got this Bill through, an examination would then be made of the situation with regard to clerical employment and it was accepted that there was a need for protective legislation of this kind. I still feel that in regard to certain sections of the Bill it would be possible to use the power of the Minister to make regulations to feel out the ground and see how far it was possible to enter into this field of clerical employment and that by the application of certain of the more essential features of this Bill to clerical employment, with due regard for the difficulties, experience would be gained which we could build on. Personally, I feel that if we are to wait until we have fully examined the position and made up our minds as to the manner in which we can apply a complete and wholesale code, a great deal of time will pass before we see similar protection given to clerical employees as we are providing for manual workers in this Bill.
I am not pressing the amendment very strongly. Rather am I trying to get a more clear statement from the Minister as to his intentions. Frankly, I feel that there are certain features of the Bill which could quite readily be applied to clerical employees, perhaps, not immediately on the coming into force of the Act. Certainly, I think that the Minister should be given these general powers and I think that, with judicious consideration, he could experiment to some extent in applying such sections of the Bill which he and his advisors thought could be readily applied without creating difficulty to clerical employees. There is a very widespread demand for this legislation. If it is left merely on the basis we have now got to proceed and examine from the ground up the whole situation in regard to clerical employment and try to devise the broad outlines of a new code which can then be embraced in actual legislation, the feeling of clerical employees is that they will have to wait a long time before they get the consideration they are entitled to.
On the Second Stage of this Bill, I informed the House that the proposals to extend this Bill one way or another to persons in commercial offices or employment would receive very careful consideration. I was forced to recognise that it is better to provide a separate Bill for those in clerical or office employment. I do not think you will get a satisfactory Bill from the standpoint of commercial employment by trying to cater in a Factories and Workshops Bill for work of a clerical or commercial nature. I think you will get a hotch-potch Bill and you might very well succeed in postponing the date of the introduction of a comprehensive Bill dealing with commercial and clerical employees.
It is not an easy subject. Even the International Labour Office have not been able to get down to anything in this field of commercial and clerical employment. The examination of the provisions which will be necessary to cover commercial employment is at present being undertaken in the Department. It will not be long until examination has reached the stage at which it will throw up certain matters of principle for a decision. I expressed the same views as Deputy Larkin did on other occasions when this question was discussed but when you get down to the realities of trying to cover both types of employment in a single Bill you are up against difficulties which seem to me insurmountable if you want to keep your legislation clear.
Mr. Lemass
We all have had the experience of seeing workers employed in a clerical capacity working under conditions which would justify legislation in respect of temperature, lighting, lavatory facilities and other amenities. There are, however, substantial objections to going ahead with legislation of that kind by the extension of this Bill. To extend the Bill to clerical workers would be a bit unfair as employers of clerical labour have not had the provisions of the Bill brought to their notice in the special way it should be done if the legislation was going to apply to it. There would be open questions in my mind, for instance, as to whether 400 cubic feet of space would be too much or too little for workers employed in a clerical capacity. I do not know whether it would or not. I think the legislation should be preceded by some committee of employers and some Trade Unions concerned with the employment of commercial workers. In that way we would have, at least, a complete examination of the problems that are involved and of the possible repercussions. My own feeling is that legislation is required for commercial workers employed under conditions which are objectionable. We should move slowly in enacting legislation in connection with commercial workers rather than rush with the application of this Bill to them. I think we would get better and more permanent legislation if we did.
The last thing I expected to happen was that we would rush into legislation in view of the experience we had in bringing up to date the factory code. My main concern in the matter is the delay that, I think, will inevitable arise in dealing with this matter. I agree with what Deputy Lemass says, that in many instances there is a greater case for protection in respect of clerical workers than manual workers. I am thinking of an office—it is about two thirds the size of this room—with 15 people working in it.
When I speak of extending the present Bill, it is merely in respect of a very limited number of sections dealing with such questions as the cubic space to be accorded to each person, the question of fire protection, the supply of drinking water and toilets. It is not unknown in this city where commercial workers have to go outside their own premises for toilet facilities. There are a great many practical difficulties. The inclusion of this amendment—I am not pressing it—does not mean that the Minister is compelled but it gives him the power to act, after examining the matter, without waiting for a new Bill. If it were possible to give an intimation that the matter would receive immediate attention on the lines that it would be considered by a committee of employers and trade unions as a preliminary examination, I think that would be helpful and satisfactory. Clerical employees would then know that they were not going to be neglected and left to wait for a long period. If we leave the matter in its present position without making some definite commitment, either by way of accepting this amendment or by setting up some kind of enquiry, I think the thing will drag out a long time. The first argument will be that the new Factories Act itself has got to be experienced for some time before we can decide as to how we can deal with the question of clerical employees. There will be the problem of applying the regulations and orders which will arise under the Bill itself when it becomes law. I think it would not be unreasonable to suggest that we could make no headway for three to five years before tackling the matter in a serious way. While we are facing the problems under the present Bill, we could be carrying on the inquiry in regard to the other matter. We have had our international codes and we by-passed a lot of them in the present Bill.
I do not know what the order is at these meetings. It is the first one of its kind I have attended. I would like to say a word about the commercial workers and I would like to support Deputy Larkin in the suggestion to set up a committee immediately to deal with this matter. There are many small offices in which two and three are compelled to work all their lives. If we had a committee of inquiry we could get this work done faster than if we depended on the factory inspectors. If the inspection of these offices were put into the hands of the local sanitary authority, the local medical officer of health and the local health inspector it would be better. I was interested in the manner in which I saw factories inspected. The inspector does his job according to his rights. The people whom I would like to see admitted to the factories are the local sanitary officers. There should be much greater inspection in so far as the sanitary and health authorities are concerned.
Mr. Lemass
That matter can be more relevantly raised later.
I think we should have an inquiry.
The examination which I undertook will throw up a number of important matters for decision on principle. It will throw up the really paramount question as to what is to be the method of supervising the application of the counterpart of this Bill to a clerical and commercial worker. You do not get a factory in every street—not even in every town but you can get an office in almost every village. The question is who is going to carry out the inspection. Is it to be the local health inspector? If you contemplate the Department of Industry and Commerce, where can one get a building for to house such an inspectorate? These are big problems.
On Fifth Stage or in the Seanad—any member may raise the matter on the Fifth Stage—I will indicate that this examination is proceeding; that I would wish employers' organisations on the one hand and trade unions on the other to get down to an early consideration of this matter and that they would inform themselves on the whole problem. We would arrange a conference with the Department and the points of view would be considered and blended in the production of a Bill to cater for the whole problem of commercial workers.
Everybody says we should do something to protect clerical workers but nobody will tell you in detail what the something is to be. There is a kind of a feeling that something should be done but there has been no detailed examination of the problem even by the trade unions or by the employers. That is a necessary preliminary to the introduction of a Bill. It will probably meet Deputy Larkin's point if we will say on the Fifth Stage or in the Seanad that this examination is proceeding and to invite both organisations to examine the matter.
At the present stage it would entail a vast expansion of the Bill.
Would you agree to withdraw?
Yes, on that basis.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
Question proposed: " That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Lemass
This Bill was originally based on the earlier Factory Acts and these Acts were very largely designed to protect young persons employed in industrial operations. It was assumed that adults could look after themselves. Many of the provisions protect young persons in circumstances in which it is desirable that even adults should be protected.
I do not see the need for the word " young ". I think we decided in discussions after the Bill got the first reading that we would delete the word " young ", unless there was good reason for keeping it.
Mr. Dockrell
Is there any legal definition for the term " young person "?
A " young person " is described in the Act as " a person whose age is less than 18 and more than 14 years ".
Mr. Lemass
A person over 18 years of age employed for these precise duties is not covered by the term.
Mr. Dockrell
" young " is refining it down.
If it is the committee's desire that there is no good reason for keeping the word " young ", then it should go.
Sections 4, 5, 6 and 7 agreed to.
Question proposed : " That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Lemass
I am not quite clear about the exceptions.
" One of the exceptions to continuity is the appointment of inspectors under Section 118 of the 1901 Act. They will be granted new authorisation under Section 90 of the Bill. The other exception is the Fire Escape Suitability Certificate issued under Section 14 of the 1901 Act. When the Bill becomes law all the premises will need a new certificate from the local authorities. Premises holding existing certificates will be entitled automatically to a new certificate."
Sections 8 and 9 are agreed to.