I move:—
"That it is the opinion of the Dáil that the Special Orders made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce under Section 2 of the Trade Board Act, 1918, varying the Trade Board (Tailoring) Order, 1919 and the Trade Board (Hat, Cap and Millinery) Order, 1919, ought to be annulled."
Under the provisions of the 1918 Trade Board Act there is provision made for the annulment of special orders to the effect that the orders shall lie upon the Table for forty days on which the House shall have sat before they come into effective operation. The case that one could make on this matter might occupy a long time if one were to go into very great detail. It is somewhat new, I think, to most Deputies, and it might be well, while I do not intend to go into any great detail, that I should say something in introducing this motion. The system of Trade Boards was established originally to meet the evil of sweating, and to make provision for fixing a minimum wage by the adjudication of a court in respect to certain trades which were notoriously underpaid and to which the term "sweating" was applied. Quite a number of Trade Boards were established under the Act of 1909, and as a consequence of the experience gained under that Act, there was a further Act passed in 1918. The Act of 1918 empowered the Minister to extend the Trade Board system to other trades than those commonly known as the sweated trades; that is to say, the Minister by special order, could apply the Act to any trade as to which he is of opinion that "no adequate machinery exists for the effective regulation of wages throughout the trade, and that accordingly, having regard to the rate of wages prevailing in the trade, or any part of the trade, it is expedient that the principal Act should apply to that trade." The effect of that very considerable change was to make it possible for Trade Boards to be established in any trade where, in the view of the Minister, adequate machinery for regulating wages did not exist, having regard to the rate of wages prevailing in the trade or in any part of the trade. The fact that the new Act was passed in 1918 was evidence, at least as far as Great Britain's experience went, that the Trade Board system was one which deserved extension. There was an automatic extension to Ireland of the system of trade boards in any particular trade for which a board might be established in Great Britain, provided that a board should be set up for Ireland in the same trades for which they were set up in England, and provided also that a considerable industry of that character was carried on in Ireland. Under the provisions of the Trade Board Act of 1918, a trade board was established for the retail tailoring trade in England, and a similar board was established in Ireland.
It is necessary to inform Deputies, who are not familiar with the situation, that the trade board consists of an equal number of persons representing the employers and workers in an industry, with two or three other person appointed by the Minister as being impartial, and a chairman, usually a man with judicial experience, who is also appointed by the Minister. The business of the trade board is to inquire into the circumstances in which a claim is made for the setting up of a minimum wage in an industry, and to hear claims for a change in the minimum wage which has been set up. In practice, what very often happens is that the case is argued by the representatives of the employers on the one side and of the workers on the other, and if no arrangement can be come to by mutual agreement, and if votes are taken, the appointed members are really the effective board. So that, in the working out of the trade board regarding rates of wages, you have, in practice, what many people have advocated as a means of settling disputes, or rather as a means of preventing disputes in industries—you have the two parties coming together to discuss propositions respecting wages. You have impartial outsiders, disinterested persons, who hear the case made for and against the claim and you have a chairman who is usually, as I have said, a man having some experience in a judicial capacity. If the case for fixing the wage is conclusive enough to satisfy the appointed persons, then such a minimum wage is established, or if a claim for reduction is made, the impartial, appointed persons have to be satisfied that a good case has been made for a reduction. I think that those who are interested and have expressed views favourable to the establishment of these joint boards must bear in mind the existence of the trade boards under the Trade Boards Act.
There are, of course, other trade boards of a not dissimilar character, but with wider scope, though not with the same powers, because the wage standards established by the trade board are legal and enforceable in the courts. I want also to insist that the business of the board is to set up a minimum rate of wages. One of the charges made against the trade boards by their opponents, of whom there are a great number on the Labour side, is that, in effect, the minimum wage which they establish becomes too often a maximum. I am not, however, going to discuss that point at present. A trade board was established in respect to the tailoring trade. In February, 1925, that board considered a demand which was made on the part of the employers for a 15 per cent. reduction in the minimum rates. One of the employers voted with the workers' side, and the appointed members also voted with the workers' side, indicating that they were not satisfied that a case had been made for the reduction of the minimum rate. On that decision being announced, the employers left the conference and refused any longer to act on the board. That was in February, 1925. In April, 1925, the Secretary of the Department wrote a letter to the Secretary of one of the Unions, in which this was stated:
"All the indications are that there is a high degree of organisation at present existing in the trade for the regulation of wages, the absence of which is a prime condition for the application of the Trade Boards Acts to any particular trade. No doubt, when the Acts were originally applied to the retail tailoring trade there was an adequate reason for such application, but the Minister has come to the conclusion that the need does not exist at present, and accordingly he now proposes to withdraw from the operations of the Trade Boards Acts the retail bespoke tailoring trade."
I quoted sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Act of 1918 which states that a special order may be applied to a trade with a view to setting up a trade board if the Minister is of opinion that no adequate machinery exists for the effective regulation of wages throughout the trade. The Minister emphasises the high degree of organisation which he says exists in the trade for the effective regulation of wages. I wish to show that there is a great distinction between the existence of organisation in a trade and the existence of adequate machinery for the effective regulation of wages. The case that was made for the abolition of this board was that the trade was organised sufficiently on the side of employers and employees to allow the regulation of wages without the intervention of a trade board.
The Act requires that adequate machinery shall exist for the effective regulation of wages before an existing board can be annulled or abolished. The case that was made for the employers before Mr. Dickie, K.C., who was appointed to inquire into the arguments for and against the proposition that this board should be abolished, was that a trade did not require to be organised fully, whether on the workers' side or the employers' side, but that if machinery existed, if an employers' association existed in the trade which was open to employers to join or not, and if unions in the trade existed on the workers' side which were open to men and women to enter or not, the very existence of these, on one side or the other, was sufficient to prove the existence of means to regulate effectively the rates of wages. The employers' case was put by their representative, Mr. Lavery, B.L., in this way: "It is not the actual membership of the union by every workman in the trade which constitutes organisations and a trade may be adequately organised to treat and bargain with employers though only a small percentage may be actually in the trade union." That was the argument used by the employers' representative, and the evidence that was brought before the inquiry showed that on the employers' side the organisation was very far short, indeed, of 100 per cent. organisation.
I have certain figures here. The Chairman of the employers' association intimated that the membership of his organisation was 73, and that it had fallen from 200 in 1921. The evidence from the workers' side was also quite conclusive to show that from the time of the establishment of the trade board there had been a very great decline in their effectiveness as organised bodies, a decline in effectiveness for more reasons than one—a decline not merely in actual membership owing to a variety of causes, one being the removal from this country of many good customers of the tailors, but another reason being the dissipation of energy on the part of rival trade unions. It was proved beyond question that, so far as effectiveness of organisation went on either side, there had been a considerable decline since the time of the establishment of this board in Ireland. One may ask why there should be any demand for the abolition of this board. I shall say, perhaps, before entering on that that the report of Mr. Dickie, who presided over the inquiry, was to confirm the case presented by the employers, that is to say, he found that there did exist machinery on the employers' side and that there did exist trade unions on the workers' side, and that there was nothing to prevent unorganised tailors from joining these societies. I think that one of the most extraordinary statements put before a Minister in circumstances such as these is contained in the report. "It was further proved that at present there was no sweating in this trade." I pointed out that it does not require that there should be sweating in a trade to have a trade board established and maintained. He says that the wages were good. The trade board established a minimum below which it would be illegal to pay, and, as a consequence, Mr. Dickie says that the wages were good. He says that the conditions of labour were good, if only the tailors could get sufficient employment.
He also says that it appeared from the evidence and the conduct of the case that the machinery established by the three societies on the part of the tailors was quite sufficient to enable proper wage conditions to be arranged, it being open to any unorganised tailors in different parts of the country to take advantage of these societies and join them. It was also proved, he says, that the association of the employers was sufficient and had sufficient machinery to enable employers to have the rates of wages fixed and to provide for such employers as have not yet joined it. That was put forward and was apparently accepted by the Minister as sufficient to prove that effective machinery existed to regulate wages. The existence of societies which people may or may not join is regarded as sufficient proof that effective machinery exists. Let me go on a little further to try and show the real meaning of this proposal to abolish this Trade Board. The representative of Messrs. Seales of Dublin, Mr. Kelly, examined by counsel for the employers side, said: "I believe that a reduction of the rate of wages will enable the handicraft tailoring trade to compete with the rougher forms of tailoring that are taking our custom at present. I believe that a revision of rates can be achieved more easily if the restrictions of the Trade Boards Act are removed." We saw that the claim for a 15 per cent. reduction in the Trade Board rates made by the employers, about which the employers found themselves unable to convince the chairman or appointed members, was followed by a refusal on the part of the employers to attend the Trade Board further. Information was then conveyed by the Minister that he intended to abolish the Board. The inquiry was conducted and the employers gave reasons why they thought the Board should be abolished, namely, that it would enable them to secure a reduction in the rate of wages.
One of the workers' representatives expresses himself thus:
I regret that the Minister has selected the retail tailoring board for the purpose of withdrawing it from the scope of the Trade Boards Act. I regret it for this reason: At the moment there are boards governing other trades which are organised on both sides.
I should say that the case had been made that the tailoring trade was thoroughly well organised.
"I refer, for instance, to the brush-making board, the wholesale tailoring board and the shirt-making board."
Mr. Maguire then interjects: "Give us a little time, Mr. Stewart." Mr. Maguire is the representative of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce. Therefore, I suggest to the Dáil that the intentions of the Minister are revealed by the statement of the representative of the Department, when he said in respect to the abolition of trade boards: "Give us a little time, Mr. Stewart." I am asking the Dáil to express its view that this special order should be annulled. I have referred to the bespoke tailoring handicraft workmen. But there is another effect of this order in as much as it refers to factory work. The scope of the retail tailoring board will be removed from factory tailoring, provided that the factory is not making clothing for three or more retail shops. You may have three retail shops of immense selling capacity and they may join together, get their clothing made in one establishment and the trade board will not have any effect on that establishment. They can use the non-legal processes of making rates of wages. That is to say, all the struggling and squabbling, striking and fighting and locking-out are to be encouraged, in preference to the ordinary method of fixing minimum rates. Prior to the establishment of the trade boards, there had not been any variation in wages in Cork for, I think, 40 years. It had not been found possible by the use of the "pull devil, pull baker" policy to improve the actual log rates for very many years. I do not want to commit myself to 40 years, because I have not got my note of the exact period, but it covers a very long time. In the case of Dublin, I think there had been but one variation in a considerable number of years also. The ordinary methods of negotiation between employers' associations and workers' associations had not been able to fix a fair rate prior to the establishment of the trade board.
When this Board was established in 1919, the organisation on both sides was better and more effective than it is to-day. Yet what is called the log-hour varied in different towns in the country from 3d. to 4d. per hour. It was a little higher in Dublin and in Belfast it was 5½d. I suppose one would require to understand the interesting theory of relativity before one could understand the relations between the log-hour and the time basis piecework rates. I should not try to explain those matters, even if I were able to do so. However, prior to the Trade Board being established there existed on both the employers' side and the workers' side better organisation than exists to-day, and that is proved by the Minutes of Evidence of the inquiry—that it took the case to be argued and proved before impartial, appointed members to raise the earning power to something like a reasonable standard. Since 1919, trouble in the retail tailoring trade has been practically nil so far as wages are concerned. Now, it is proposed to abolish the regulating machinery and to throw upon the two sides the responsibility of making a reasonable minimum standard of wages by the method of strike or lock-out. If the Minister thinks that is an advance, I hope he will not get many people to agree with him. When we have an intimation by the representative of the Ministry, who appeared before the inquiry, to the effect that this is only the first of a number of trade boards which are to be abolished, I think it is time we should draw attention to the policy of the Department in this matter.
It is perhaps not unfair to remind the House that we have on this day's Order Paper three items—the Railways Bill, which we have been discussing; the Unemployment Insurance Bill, and this motion. The Railways Bill is obviously and confessedly directed towards depriving workmen of certain rights established by law. The purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, which has not yet been under discussion, is to deprive workmen of certain rights established by law, which they had hitherto held. We have then the proposition which we are now discussing, to make the first abolition of the trade boards which have operated to protect workmen and workwomen. Those three items, coming from the Department of Industry and Commerce and taken together, have a very sinister appearance. They seem to show that there is a general attack being made upon that class of social legislation which has secured to workmen some protection and some amelioration of the conditions which the system that we are living under has imposed on workpeople. There is a distinct sign of deliberate retrogression in respect to social legislation in these three items. If we are to pass by this attempt to abolish the retail tailoring trade board, we may take it from indications that it is merely number one of a series of similar operations.
I want it to be noted that the power of the Minister to abolish a board depends upon certain conditions. It is a condition that adequate machinery for the effective regulation of wages throughout the trade now exists, whereas it did not exist, or is presumed not to have existed, when the board was established. I doubt whether that is the reason at the back of the Minister's mind for seeking to abolish this board. He has other reasons for desiring to abolish the board. It appears in the course of the evidence at the inquiry that, owing to the peculiarities of the trade, employers were not satisfied that they could make effective the minimum rates fixed by the trade board, that the law itself did not enable the rates established on the piecework system—the log rate system—to be made effective. One of the cases made was that there had been a change in the conditions of the trade since the board was established.
Then Mr. Dickie, who conducted this inquiry, refers to the existence, or to the establishment, or general acceptance—although it is not quite true to speak of it as acceptance—of what is known as the Scotch log. Deputy Egan from Cork will be very familiar with these phrases, due to his long association with representatives of the tailoring trade on the Cork Trades Council and other trade union organisations. But what is known as the Scotch log was imposed upon the employees a year or two ago. I say imposed upon the employees. They are working under this Scotch log now, and it has replaced or displaced twelve or thirteen other systems of reckoning earnings. I emphasise the point that it was imposed upon them to show that there does not exist adequate machinery for the effective regulation, unless we are to assume, if the employers say the thing shall be done and it becomes operative, that that is effective regulation. Certainly that was never contemplated in the Act as the machinery for the effective regulation of wages. But let us take it as accepted and as an improvement to have the Scotch log standardised throughout the country. The existence of that method deprives the Minister of his case, because it does enable the Trade Board to make an Order to regulate its method of payment by fixing the log rate in such a manner as can be readily enforced. The case was made that the old system, where there was a great variety of methods of calculating earnings, made it impossible for the trade board rate to be enforcible by law or put into operation at all. That case has now gone by the board owing to the establishment of this regular standardised system of the Scotch log. I ask the Dáil, therefore, not to adopt the formula of the Act, "to pray his Majesty," but "to express the opinion" that this Order ought to be annulled. If the Dáil does express its opinion in that form, I believe it would be taken as being just as effective as if we decided to pray his Majesty to annul the Order.
