Public Business. - Conditions of Employment Bill, 1935—Committee (Resumed).
I move amendment No. 74:—
In sub-section (1) (d), line 15, to delete the figures "56" and substitute the figures "49."
The object of this amendment is to ensure that, in connection with shift working on continuous processes, no worker shall be required to work more than 49 hours, instead of the 56 hours provided for in the Bill. In this Bill the Minister has fixed a maximum working week of 48 hours in respect of day work, and, presumably, that is based on the belief that from a social point of view, from an economic point of view, and from a national point of view, a maximum working week of 48 hours is desirable. In connection with the conditions under which shift work is performed, the Minister proposes that the hours of work may be as long as 56 in any one week, and that is eight hours longer than the Minister proposes for the maximum working week in respect of day work. I cannot see any reason for extending the working week in the case of workers employed in shift work.
If there was a scarcity of workers, one could understand the desire of the Minister to safeguard industry against the possible reactions that would flow from a reduction of working hours. But it is not a problem of the scarcity of labour; it is a problem of a surfeit of labour; it is a problem that expresses itself in the the fact that there are too many workers for such work as is available and, so long as that condition of affairs exists—and I think it appears likely to continue—there is no case for continuing a 56-hour week in respect of shift work while we fix a maximum working week of 48 hours in respect of day work.
The only consideration which I can advance against the acceptance of this amendment is the same as that which I advanced against an earlier amendment moved by the Deputy, amendment No. 42. We are not proposing in this Bill to do more than fix the maximum working hours and conditions contemplated in the Washington Convention, and they represent the conditions generally recognised by the majority of good employers. If there is any case for a reduction of working hours below the maximum hours authorised by this Bill, then it is proposed to effect that reduction after examination of the conditions operating in each industry, after consultation with the parties engaged in it and by regulations made under Section 44. I do not think it is desirable that we should proceed in any other manner. Any all-round reduction of working hours that would tend to affect the conditions of a number of industries might produce results which we cannot foresee, and the wiser method is to deal with the matter industry by industry, after examination of all the circumstances and after consultation with the interested parties. Consequently, I am unable to accept the amendment.
I think the Minister must realise that there would be nothing to prevent him having such consultations as he might deem necessary with interested parties, following the passage of this Bill, even if the working hours in respect of shift work are reduced from 56 to 48. The Minister ought to try to give us a 1935 reason and not a 1919 reason for the fixation of hours of work on shift work at 56 a week. Of course, the Minister knows that, in effect, 56 hours a week would be the normal working period in respect of shift work.
No. The Bill authorises the worker to be employed for not more than 56 hours in any week. The Deputy will appreciate, if he multiplies 9 by 6, that any week in which 56 hours are worked will be an exception.
I do not quite follow the Minister.
A man working nine hours a day for six days will have a total of 54 working hours. The Bill prohibits any person being employed on a shift longer than nine hours. If he works six days he will not work 56 hours. He may, however, having regard to variations in employment which naturally take place in industries worked on the continuous process, be allowed in any week to work 56 hours.
Assuming this thing works out in the nice tidy way envisaged by the Minister, at least there will be a 54-hour week and possibly, on a change over of staff, handing over from one worker to another when commencing a new shift week, the working hours might probably be extended to 56. I cannot understand the Minister's case for making a maximum working week of 56 hours. What is the difficulty in making the maximum working day seven hours instead of nine hours? What is the difficulty in working shifts on the basis of four instead of three? The Minister ought to tell us what practical difficulties could be anticipated if the shifts are worked on the basis of four instead of the three envisaged in the Bill.
I do not know, and neither does the Deputy.
The Minister is expected to know. Who ought to know if the Minister does not? It is the Minister's special task to examine the reactions of a Bill of this kind. He should be in a position to tell us what effects an amendment of this kind would have on industry and the beneficial effects it would have on the serious unemployment problem that there is now in the country. Does the Minister take the view that it was not possible to have a consultation between representative persons in industry and that it was not possible to have further planning if the hours in this sub-section were reduced from 56 to 49? I submit the Minister can have consultation and further planning if the hours are reduced from 56 to 49. It is not a valid argument against this amendment to say that because certain persons met in Washington in 1919 and had a certain conception of industrial hours in the circumstances then obtaining that the same arguments can be automatically applied to the consideration of a problem the same in character as in 1935 but varied in circumstances from 1935. I want to press this amendment on the Minister.
It is my view that it is wiser to proceed in the manner of making a separate examination of each industry and to have this examination of their circumstances in consultation with the parties engaged in it. The International Labour Office at Geneva some years ago did not think this was necessary. Now the International Labour Office has come to the opinion that it is wiser to proceed with industry by industry after making an examination of all the circumstances and after consultation with the interested parties. This section is in conformity with the best opinions all over the world.
Does the Minister want to have a discussion and proceed industry by industry as to the working hours? What number of working hours had they in mind when they fixed that? I suggest the number then was 40.
Yes, 40, but longer for shift work.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
No, Sir. I am pressing this amendment.
Question put: "That the figures proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 26.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Good, John.
- Goulding, John.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
Níl
- Anthony, Richard.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Desmond, William.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Mahony, The
- Pattison, James P.
- Reidy, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Everett and Keyes.
Motion declared passed—amendment lost.
I move amendment No. 75:—
In sub-section (1), to insert before paragraph (e) the following paragraph:—
(e) no worker shall work for more than one shift in any period of twenty-four hours.
The object of the amendment is to endeavour to safeguard a worker against the possibility that he may be required to work two shifts in a period of 24 hours. Under the section it is true that no shift may be longer than nine hours in duration, and under sub-section (1) (c) it is provided that no worker shall work another shift unless eight hours have elapsed since he worked on a previous shift. Looking at the effect of the section on industrial employment, it would appear to be possible for a worker to work nine hours, to have eight hours off, and then to start a second shift of nine hours, unless there is some provision that he shall only, at all events, be required to work one shift in a period of 24 hours. I think the Minister will agree that it is very undesirable that a worker should be required to work for 16 hours within a period of 24 hours. Under the section as drawn he can be required to work for a period of 16 hours within a period of 24 hours. I think the Minister should meet this amendment at all events to the extent of ensuring that a worker will not be required to work for such long hours.
The Deputy says it is possible for a worker to work 16 hours within 24 hours. He can do it under the section, but that is to permit of the change-over taking place, as it must take place in every shift work industry, where a worker does a week or a fortnight or a month on a night shift and then goes on to the day shift. On the day of the change over it may be necessary to take two shifts which must be divided by a period of not less than eight hours. The amendment would prevent that and create considerable difficulty and, therefore, I cannot accept the amendment. It is necessary to provide that a worker, changing over from the night to the day shift or vice versa, or changing over from shift work to day work, could in certain circumstances be required to work two shifts with an interval of eight hours in between.
Surely the Minister does not think it is necessary to leave the section as wide as it is?
The safeguards are all there. The safeguards are that the worker must not work on two shifts unless there is an eight-hour interval between the two shifts. In any event, he is subject to the maximum hours per week and the maximum hours per shift, so that the situation which the Deputy contemplated could only happen once in a week. It could not happen as a regular matter.
Of course it could. There is nothing to prevent it happening as a regular process. What is to prevent a worker being required to work 16 hours in 24 hours; 16 hours in the next 24 hours; and 16 hours within the next 24 hours? Is not that quite possible?
Then he has the rest of the week free.
Is that a benefit to him?
I do not think so. It does not happen and the Deputy knows that.
The Minister does not think it is a benefit to him to give him the rest of the week free. The Minister, in any case, gives a certificate that he does not think that this freedom is any benefit to him.
The Deputy is wrong. If he counts it up again he will see it could not happen.
It is possible, under the section as drawn, for a worker to work a nine-hour shift, to have eight hours off, to go on again for a second nine hours, to be put off for a second eight hours, and in that way exhaust his working week, let us say, in three and a half days of the normal calendar week. Even if he has the remainder of the week off, I think it is very undesirable that a worker should be allowed to undertake a physical endurance test of that kind. I am willing to consent to any conditions that may be necessary to deal with the possibility of meeting a situation which involves a change over from day to night work, or from one shift to another, but it is not necessary, in order to meet that situation, to leave the section as wide as it is. The Minister could, I think, meet whatever difficulty he has in mind without leaving the section in this loose way. I shall calculate the timetable for the Minister on the next section.
The Deputy will find that it is impossible to work for 16 hours on three days of the week.
I think there is a good deal in what the Minister said in regard to the change over from night to day work if the amendment were accepted but, at the same time, the Minister might see if he could not tighten up the section a little more because, while what Deputy Norton outlined is not likely to happen, there is at least the possibility of its arising. I do not think it is likely to happen because, apart from the question of the workman, the employer who would be so foolish as to try to make a man work 16 hours out of the 24 for two or three days per week would find his man was not very much good at the end of it, or that the work turned out by a man under these circumstances would not be up to the standard. At the same time, I think the Minister should see his way to tighten up the section a little more—it is impossible to make it watertight—while leaving that looseness which is necessary to accommodate the change over from one shift to another. There is the possibility of what Deputy Norton mentioned happening.
The Deputy appreciates that we are fixing under this Bill maximum hours of work in respect of a number of industries which are worked on the shift-work system at present. Lower maximum hours than those are, in fact, in operation at present. In fact, at the recent International Labour Convention, at which there was a proposal of a 40-hour week for the glass bottle industry, we were in a position to ratify the Convention straight away, because the conditions in the glass bottle industry here are such as would enable us to do it without any change whatever in the existing conditions.
The same applies to certain other industries where the maximum hours are much lower than those authorised in this Bill. Deputy Norton is making the point that we accepted the maximum hours suggested and adopted by the Washington Hours Convention in 1919, but the fact is that few countries have yet attempted to embody these hours in their legislation. We are amongst the first to do so and we have put them in with the intention of making them the normal outside limit. The intention is to further reduce them where circumstances require but to have special provision made in accordance with Section 44 where it is considered the circumstances require it. Deputy Norton thinks the legislation should automatically operate to give effect to such drastic proposals as he suggests. Our idea is that to be fully aware of the consequences of any substantial reduction in hours in any industry you must take that industry separately and deal with it by regulations that can be modified, if necessary.
In this Bill we are providing, in connection with shifts, for the adoption of the working hours of the Washington Convention. There were workers' representatives present when these hours were adopted and they agreed that where there were three shifts the provisions made were ample to safeguard the interests of the workers. In the glass bottle industry, where there are four shifts, the hours are very substantially reduced. For the purposes of this part of the Bill, the effect of the Washington Convention was to authorise a three shift system, and we propose to do that. It is not possible, as Deputy Norton seems to suggest, for a worker to be asked to work 18 hours on two consecutive days.
Well, 16 hours. If a worker works for eight hours, he gets eight hours off and cannot get another shift until after eight hours' rest. If he works nine hours, he gets eight hours' rest and can do seven hours in the next shift. The next day he can do two hours in the first shift, and after the prescribed rest complete a total of 11 hours, and the next day 13 hours, but that would never happen in practice. The argument against Deputy Norton's amendment is that it would prevent something that is desirable in the interests of the worker and the employer, namely: that it should be possible to change a man, from a night shift to day shift without dislocating the industry or the process. The only industries dealt with here are those in which the process must go on all the time and in which there cannot be any interruption of the work which must go on once it is started. It is necessary to make different provisions in these industries from those which can be started at 8 o'clock in the morning and stopped at six in the evening and started again the next day. The industries affected here are of an entirely different nature.
In the effort to appear in the role of a pioneer, the Minister has eliminated other considerations——
I said yesterday I was the most conservative man in this House.
That was a confession that was almost unnecessary. The Bill seems to be hall-marked with conservatism. The Minister seems to take some peculiar pride, which I cannot understand, in the fact that this country had adopted the Washington Hours Convention.
It has gone much further.
We are now dealing with hours. This is an hours convention. There is no worker in the State who is thrilled by the Minister's Bill in respect of hours. It is not very material in actual life whether the Washington Hours Convention is ratified or not.
They refused to do it in Great Britain.
Is this the Minister's new pattern—what is done in Great Britain? The Minister's conception of an up-to-date social programme is what arises in Great Britain. Is that part of his confession of Toryism?
It was the Labour Government that refused to ratify the Washington Convention in Great Britain.
It was not the Labour Government. Let the Minister look at the Geneva Agenda, when the Labour Party was the Government. Let him read the speech of Mr. Tom Shaw.
No. Has the Minister read the speech made by the Labour Minister in the Labour Government at Geneva when this matter was discussed there? If he had done so, he would not make the statement he has just made. Far from having a right to compliment himself on the fact that this country is ratifying the Washington Convention, the Minister will find that it only proves that this country is out of date in attempting to establish a high social programme founded on the Washington Convention. The Washington Convention is out of date in respect to industrial matters. In many countries, the hours of work are not more than 48, and in many countries they are less than 48. I think in Czecho-Slovakia and Denmark, they are less. If he steps outside Great Britain the Minister will get an example of what is being done in respect to working hours. If the Minister compares the standard in the two countries I have mentioned with the standard obtaining here, he will find that these countries are far ahead compared with ours in that respect. I am prepared to meet the Minister in respect to the matter of the change from one shift to another. At the same time, I think it is not necessary to have the section as widely drawn as it is. If the Minister would look into the question of having the worker not required to work for more than one shift in any period of 24 hours, except for a change-over, I would withdraw the amendment.
That is all the section provides for.
Well, it will have to be drawn a bit more tightly.
You cannot have the same regulations in respect to continuous-process industry that you have in respect to others. The worker who is working on a shift even for nine hours, cannot walk away and leave the machine running. If his relief is delayed by accident or otherwise, he must remain until someone comes to take his place. The same thing would apply in the event of any cause preventing the worker from taking his place in the shift when the time came for him. It might be necessary to call in as a substitute for such worker somebody who had been working in an earlier shift—not the immediately preceding shift but an earlier shift. You must allow for these contingencies in relation to work of this kind.
There is the contingency section under which a matter of that kind can be dealt with.
We are imposing here the limitations which are considered necessary, namely, that no matter what the contingency—apart from an emergency which is covered by the emergency section—a worker must not work two shifts running, and must have eight hours' interval. We think that that is all that is necessary to provide for in the general provisions whatever special regulations may subsequently be made under Section 44.
Would the Minister examine it with a view to covering this as a matter of course?
As a matter of ordinary practice, the worker will work only one shift a day. Of course, that is the practice.
And amend the section, if necessary.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 76:—
In sub-section (1) (e), line 17, to delete the word "fifteen" and substitute the word "thirty".
The object of this amendment is to extend the period of the rest interval allowed under sub-section (1) (e) from 15 minutes to 30 minutes. The relevant portion of the sub-section reads:—
Every worker shall be allowed at least 15 minutes' rest in every shift not less than three or more than four hours after the commencement of such shift.
The object of that portion of the section is to provide the worker with a rest interval of 15 minutes in each shift of nine hours, and the object of the amendment is to extend the period to 30 minutes. I take it that the Minister agrees that the rest referred to is mainly for the purpose of enabling such workers to partake of a meal, and if that is the object, I do not think that 15 minutes is adequate in respect of a worker who is compelled to work nine hours continuously in a shift in industrial employment and probably during the night, and having regard to the strain and burden imposed upon the worker as a consequence of being required to undergo a period of toil extending over nine hours. I think 30 minutes is the minimum period of rest which ought to be allowed in nine hours' toil. In any case, 15 minutes seems altogether inadequate, and a very small fraction of the working hours of a worker for the purpose of enabling him to partake of a meal or to engage in any other kind of rest. I suggest that the Minister ought to accept the amendment, because I think 15 minutes is altogether inadequate.
Could the Minister say whether this is to include the meal hour? Is it not exclusive of meals?
There is no meal hour provided for here. I want Deputies to remember again the type of industry they are dealing with. I give the example of a sugar cooker in the sugar factory. He cannot leave the sugar boiler. So long as he is on duty for the whole of the period, he must be there, and even his rest and his meal must be taken beside the boiler. It may be that for half-an-hour he will have nothing whatever to do with the boiler, except to look at the indicator showing how the sugar is cooking, but he must be there in case something goes wrong, to put it right.
The same thing would apply to certain other industries, such as, for example, a worker in a gas works whose job it is to see that an engine keeps running. It may be that, for an hour, he will have nothing to do, but he must be there all the time, and even when taking his meal he must be there in case something should happen to the engine which would require his immediate attention. Deputies will get over their difficulties in dealing with the provisions of this section if they remember that it relates only to industries which are worked on a continuous process and in which the work must go on continuously or a disaster of some kind will happen. The provision here is that the worker may be given fifteen minutes' rest for a meal in the course of a shift. I agree that the fact that the worker has to remain on the premises makes it obvious that even that rest period must be regarded as a working period for purposes of pay. In so far as the worker is not free during that period to leave his work or to take recreation, it is a working period and he is paid for that period. This is merely put in as a proviso to ensure that he will be allowed to take a meal.
I do not know if it would be possible in any one of these industries—certainly neither of the two I have mentioned—on a basis which would allow a worker on a shift to go outside the factory or to walk about in the open air. Again, I say that I think 15 minutes too short a period, and I know that in some of these shift industries they manage to give the workers a longer rest period than 15 minutes. My feeling in these matters is that we should take the practice as we understand it to exist and as laid down in the Convention to which I have referred; to enact that as the standard; and then to proceed to take industry by industry and modify these regulations in whatever way it is considered desirable, having regard to the representations made by the workers and the general desire that the hours of work in industry should be reduced and that working conditions should be improved. Therefore, I am inclined to resist any of these amendments which propose to modify these sections, all of which are taken verbatim from the Washington Hours Convention. I say that we should take these sections, put them into our legislation, and enact them, while, at the same time, taking power to make regulations industry by industry, to reduce hours of work and improve conditions in whatever way it seems desirable after all parties have been taken into consultation.
It seems to me that we have got to face up to this fact, that under this section a man may be called on to work continuously for nine hours, with the small break suggested by the section of 15 minutes. The Minister talked about a man whose job it would be to look at the gauge of the engine or boiler, but I suggest that the Minister took the easiest form of work. We know that that man is engaged all the time, in the sense that he has to keep his eye, so to speak, on the gauge and to see that everything is going right, but there is the other type of worker. You might have shift work where a man is engaged in strenuous manual labour for a continuous period of nine hours, and it seems to me that the cases I have in mind apply to a far greater number of workers than the case suggested by the Minister.
That is so, but we have to fix a maximum that will cover all workers. I agree that if there is strenuous manual work involved, the shift should be short, and I propose to effect that in relation to such an industry under Section 44.
I am very glad to hear that, but again I want to return to this continuous period of nine hours. It is very long. It may seem short when talking about it here, but if a man has to undertake to do a form of work over a period of nine hours, and particularly if it is at night, it seems considerably longer than nine hours. It seems to me that if arrangements can be made to give such men a 15 minutes' rest interval, there ought not to be any very great difficulty in extending that to half-an-hour. I think the amendment is reasonable. I am, of course, glad to hear the Minister say that he proposes to have regard to the type of work which will have to be undertaken, because I know of certain work performed in this country which is very strenuous and at which a man must keep working continuously over the full period of the shift. I would ask the Minister to take whatever precautions he can in the Bill to see that workers of that class particularly will get the maximum rest that it is possible to give them, having regard to the difficulty of arranging time during shift work.
The Deputy will appreciate that in legislation of this kind we must fix a maximum limit that will meet all possible cases that will arise. We can only deal with special cases by special regulation made within the general provisions.
My point is that the maximum which the Minister is fixing is apparently being fixed on the basis of a type of work performed by a minority of the workers who will be affected by this section.
The general regulation must make provision for all industries.
There will be a separate regulation for different industries.
For different forms of work.
Under Section 44 the Minister may make these regulations. Perhaps he would give us some indication when these regulations will be made and when they will come into force, so that we might know where we are. The Minister is going to take different forms of work and issue different regulations covering the various forms of work. That is going to take a considerable time. There may be some forms of work that will not be covered for two years.
It is quite possible. Any way, the situation will be no worse than at present.
That is very poor consolation. We could say that about every section in the Bill. I am sure the Minister does not want that to be taken as his attitude.
I would be desirous of completing the series of regulations as early as possible. It is quite true that there may be industries in respect to which I may not be able to take any action for some considerable time, but I shall first deal with those where the conditions require the most urgent attention and where there is likely to be a general agreement to bring in a newer and better system and then proceed, stage by stage, within industry after industry. I do not say that you cannot deal with two industries at the same time but you have got to deal with the matter seriatim.
There are forms of work where the necessity for this is not so great as in other forms of work. Could we get an undertaking from the Minister that he will first take the more strenuous forms of work?
If the work done by the worker on the shift is heavy manual work I think, as a general practice, we shall endeavour to institute a four-shift system.
How can the Minister extend the 15 minutes to 30 minutes or to any greater period than 15 minutes under Section 44?
By excluding the industry from any of the obligations under Section 26 and then proceed to make a new set of regulations.
But how would you? Let us hear that portion of the section which enables that to be done.
What does this section deal with? The section deals with hours of shift work.
I thought the Minister was trying to deal with this matter under Section 44.
There is no power to deal with this problem under Section 44. The Minister has power under Section 44 to restrict the hours of work.
Let us see what it is. The power conferred on the Minister under Section 44 is to restrict the hours of work. The Minister, say, restricts the hours of work from 44 to 40 per week. That is what the Minister can do under Section 44. He can bring the hours down to 40 per week, but, in any case, the person employed at shift work will still only be entitled to 15 minutes rest in any period of work.
That is the thinnest argument we heard to-day.
Let us see how thin it is. The Minister has power under Section 44 to reduce the hours of work from 48 or 44 to 40 per week. He has not shown us that he has any power under Section 44 to extend the rest interval from 15 minutes to 30.
The section says: "The Minister may by order make regulations fixing in such manner as he may think fit the hours of work in respect of such form of industrial work."
The hours of work are not the hours of relief.
My object here is to increase this period of relief in such a way that the worker will not be unduly extended and will also be paid for the period of extension because of the fact that it is only 30 minutes in a period of 9 hours. The Minister will find on reconsideration that Section 44 does not give him power to deal with this matter. However, when we come to Section 44, I hope the Minister will be as audacious about the powers he has under it as he appears to be now.
In any event, the shorter the shift the less important the rest becomes.
If you reduce the hours from 9 to 5, there will be no necessity for a rest at all.
If you are going to allow a 15 minutes' interval on 9 hours work, surely you would be justified under the Minister's argument in reducing the 15 minutes if you reduce the hours of work? If you reduce the hours from 9 to 8, you would be quite justified in reducing the 15 minutes to 13. The fact of the matter is that a person employed for 9 hours on laborious work is only to get 15 minutes from the section. The Minister has quoted in support of his case two very extreme instances which can hardly be said to be typical of continuous processes in industry.
They are typical of the extreme case. They are not typical of workers engaged in ordinary processes.
If the process is a continuous process, there must be adequate precautions to ensure that the process will not stop.
There will be nobody more concerned to see that an engine is not overheated than the worker himself. He will be much more concerned than the Minister or the employer who will be perhaps at home in bed. The worker will be quite concerned to see that the engine does not become overheated, because the worker will stand in the greatest danger of physical injury if any of these precautions are not taken. We can assume, at all events, that the worker will probably take more interest than anybody else in making sure that adequate precautions are taken. The Minister says, however, that from whatever survey he has made of the conditions in such industries he is quite satisfied that 15 minutes, at all events, can be afforded.
Of course he implies it when he makes provision for this 15 minutes in the section. The Minister is not going to say quite recklessly and without any consideration that he is going to grant 15 minutes, because even under the Minister's section the worker can go away from the sugar gauge or the engine indicator for 15 minutes. The Minister is satisfied himself, by seeking to enact this provision, that the worker can do what he likes in these 15 minutes. The Minister has broken ground in providing that the worker must get 15 minutes at a certain period, not being more than four hours since he commenced work, during which the worker can be away from the vital machines of which the Minister talked. The principle, therefore, of his right to be away is established. The principle of the desirability of giving him that rest is established.
The Minister is satisfied that there is no risk if he is away for 15 minutes, and my proposal is that since 15 minutes is inadequate, it should be extended to 30 minutes. My amendment does not bring into consideration the idea whether it is possible to afford him such a rest interval. The Minister has already decided that. My amendment does not bring into consideration the question of whether there is danger if he is absent, because the Minister has already decided that. I think it must be admitted by everyone that 15 minutes in a long nine hours' toil is altogether inadequate. I am surprised to see the Minister standing over a proposal of this kind, because 15 minutes is obviously inadequate. About 2 per cent. of a man's time, out of the nine hours, is granted to him for rest. Remember this is the only opportunity the man may have of getting a meal during those nine hours, and the Minister is proposing to give him only 15 minutes. I think the proposal is outrageous. We have got to make a choice between the sugar being perfectly cooked and boiled and of ministering to the needs of the human material engaged in making the sugar process possible. At all events, if we are to err at all, we ought to err in doing what is reasonable and fair to the human material engaged in the industry.
I think it is time that we got away from what I may describe as this debating class style between the Minister and Deputy Norton. Can we get from the Minister an assurance that when we come to Section 44, if he finds that he has not sufficient power under the section as it stands to enable him to do what he states he proposes to do, he will take steps to amend the section to give him that power, if necessary?
It is intended to have that power under the section, and the section provides it.
Apparently Deputy Norton is not satisfied that the Minister will have that power under the section. I think the Minister should look into that, and if he is not quite satisfied that the power is there, then I suggest that he should take the necessary steps to give him the power which he says he wants in order to make the regulation.
We have had a long debate with regard to the case of a man in charge of the sugar boiler. There are other types of employment to be considered where you will have a number of men on a job, and in those cases I do not see how this principle of a 15 minutes' rest period can be applied at all. I do not see much difference between the Minister's proposal and Deputy Norton's amendment. I think that neither will be found adequate in certain circumstances. I have in mind the case of men engaged on railway bridge construction. The tides hamper or facilitate their work, with the result that very often they have to work not only during the night but throughout a great part of the following day. The reason for that, of course, is to make the railway-road available as soon as possible. A period of five, 10 or 15 minutes may be of vital importance where you are dealing with the tides. Paragraph (e) of this section says that every worker shall be allowed at least 15 minutes' rest in each shift of not less than three nor more than four hours. In connection with the work that I am speaking of, it may not be possible—indeed in many cases for the reasons that I have already stated it would not be possible—to observe that condition at all. Because of the conditions under which this special work is done, a 15 minutes' rest would not be sufficient at all. Irrespective of what is laid down in this section, the men engaged on it will not be satisfied with 15 or 30 minutes. They will have to get adequate time to take a full meal. That class of work is of a very arduous nature. This section, in fact, contemplates wiping out the minimum of a 45 minutes' interval enjoyed by all workers engaged in construction work, and proposes to reduce the interval to 15 minutes.
It does not propose anything of the kind.
There is no provision in it for meal hours. There is just the provision for the 15 minutes' rest in a nine-hour spell. I think, in connection with the workers to whom I have been referring, the Minister should put into the section the words "without prejudice to their regular meal hours". An amendment of the section is required to meet this special class of workers. If the Minister has not already the power to deal with special classes of work, he should take the power, because the cast-iron conditions laid down here could not be applied in the case of constructional work on the railways.
The Deputy says that this section provides for a 15 minutes' rest interval. It provides for at least a 15 minutes' rest interval, and the Deputy should not ignore the two vital words "at least". Again, I want Deputies to remember that where you are dealing with legislation of this kind, fixing maximum hours of work and minimum standards of conditions of employment, it is unfair to contend that the maximum hours fixed or the minimum standards fixed are the Government's conception of what should be the normal conditions. If you fix minimum rates of wages for industry you are not saying that you think that those are the rates of wages that you think should prevail generally. In this case, where you fix maximum hours and minimum standards of conditions of employment, you are simply doing that in order to fix a limit beyond which conditions cannot deteriorate.
You are fixing a minimum in this section which, I submit, cannot be applied in the case of the special class of railway work to which I have referred.
The special regulations required to deal with a special class of work do not come in under this section, but under Section 44. Under that section special regulations will be made to exempt special classes of workers, such as those referred to. It is obvious that they should not be subject to the general provisions of this Bill. There is a provision in the Bill which prohibits certain classes of work on Sundays and holidays, but as we all know, those engaged on constructional work on the railways do most of their work on Sundays and holidays, and obviously they will have to be excluded. They will be allowed to carry on their work during the time best fitted for its execution. You can only deal with a special class of work by special regulations. I have been trying to get that into Deputy Norton's head during most of the afternoon, and I am glad that I am now having the co-operation of Deputy Keyes.
We will have a division on this, and see where the co-operation is.
Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Good, John.
- Goulding, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
Níl
- Anthony, Richard.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William
- Pattison, James P.
- Reidy, James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Everett and Keyes.
Question declared carried.
Amendment 77 not moved.
Section 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
(1) It shall not be lawful for any employer to permit any worker employed by him in any industrial undertaking to do any industrial work on licensed shift work in such a manner as to contravene any condition contained in the licence authorising such licensed shift work or any of the following conditions, that is to say:—
(a) no shift shall be longer than nine hours in duration;
(b) no worker shall work on two consecutive shifts;
(c) no worker shall work on any shift unless at least eight hours have elapsed since he worked on a previous shift;
(d) no worker shall work for so many hours in any week that the average number of hours per week worked by him in any three consecutive weeks would exceed forty-eight;
(e) every worker shall be allowed at least fifteen minutes rest in each shift not less than three nor more than four hours after the commencement of such shift.
(2) If any employer acts in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
Amendments 78, 79 and 80 not moved.
I move amendment No. 81.
In sub-section (1) before paragraph (d) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
No worker shall work for more than one shift in any period of twenty-four hours.
Discussing a similarly phrased amendment on Section 26, I urged on the Minister that it was desirable that a worker should be prevented from working two shifts in any period of 24 hours. I still think that there was a good case for the acceptance of that amendment by the Minister, but there is a very much stronger case for the acceptance of this amendment. Under Section 26 no worker could be obliged to work more than 56 hours in any week but, under Section 27, it is possible for a worker to be employed for 81 hours in one week. The only overriding consideration is that when you take his time for a period of three weeks he should not work more than 48 hours each week. It is unreasonable to expect that a worker should be required, in the absence of any restrictions in the section, to work 81 hours a week, and I think the Minister will agree, in respect of this section, that it has not the safeguard which existed in the previous section, namely, where they work two shifts in the period of 24 hours the worker should not be required to work more than 56 hours in the complete week. I should like to hear the Minister justifying a provision which would make an employee work 81 hours a week.
I think it would be most unreasonable to expect a worker to work 81 hours. There is nothing in this section requiring a worker to do so.
It makes it possible for him to do so.
Does the Deputy want the Bill withdrawn?
I am beginning to get very lukewarm about it.
In that case there would be no statutory barrier against working every hour of the day.
Except the one justification which the workers have and must always depend on, the trade unions.
Exactly, their power to ensure that unreasonable conditions will not be imposed upon them. We are setting down statutory obligations regarding the hours of employment. In many cases there will not be an actual obligation because conditions which are regarded as good and reasonable, and likely to produce the most efficient results, will operate in the majority of cases. We are taking power, where necessary, to enforce statutory obligations where these conditions cannot be secured otherwise. Under this section the obligation on employers is more restrictive than in the case of the previous section, because, in respect of licensed shift work there is an obligation that the worker's maximum hours per week must not exceed 48.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 84 not moved.
Sections 27 and 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 29.
On receipt of any application under this Act for a shift work licence the Minister may at his absolute discretion grant or refuse such licence.
The following amendment stood on the Order Paper:—
In line 45, to delete the words "at his absolute discretion" and substitute the words "after consultation with persons who are, in his opinion, representative of employers interested in that form of industrial work and with persons who are, in his opinion, representative of workers so interested."—(Deputy Norton.)
I am prepared to consider this amendment. There is a case for it and there is a case against it.
That assurance is like the curate's egg.
Amendment No. 85 not moved.
Section 29 agreed to.
SECTION 30.
Every shift work licence granted under this Act shall be in the prescribed form and shall authorise the person to whom it is granted to employ workers on shift work either generally or subject to such conditions as the Minister may think fit to impose and to insert in such licence.
I move amendment No. 86:—
At the end of the section, to add a new sub-section as follows:—
Nothing contained in a shift work licence granted in accordance with the provisions of this Act shall operate so as to disturb any agreement either expressed or implied relating to the hours of work, rates of pay or conditions of employment subsisting between the person to whom such licence is granted and the workers employed by such person.
If the Minister is going to authorise the granting of a shift work licence it is only reasonable that when the employer is given certain rights, by reason of being excluded from the scope of certain sections of the Bill, that should not operate to disturb in any way existing agreements that were arrived at between employers and workers. The granting of such a licence should not operate to reduce the standard of living of the workers, rates of wages or conditions of employment in the industry.
I agree with that, but I do not see why it is necessary to insert such a provision here. I do not know if the Deputy contemplates that that danger will arise. Section 30 provides that the Minister may license an employer engaged in a particular form of industry to work the shift system, upon such conditions as he thinks it necessary to impose, in order to safeguard the position of the workers, or for any other reason. I do not know why the Deputy contemplates that the power might be used to depress wages. In any event, having inserted a previous amendment regarding consultation, this hardly becomes necessary.,
I think it does. You might have a position where, in respect of a certain form of industrial work, for a certain period it is within the scope of the Act, and consequently is obliged to conform to its provisions. But some of these provisions might have been embodied in an agreement negotiated between workers and employers. Subsequently, if the Minister issues a licence for shift work in respect of that form of industrial undertaking, I want to make sure, wherever the provisions of that agreement are to the advantage of the workers, even if some of them are part of the Act, that they will, at least, be preserved to the worker once it is shift work.
It is necessary to have this section in order to enable shift work to be practised in industries which may not be properly described as continuous process industries. Flour milling is a case in point. It would be impossible to contend that flour milling is the type of industry which must be worked by continuous process. It need not necessarily be worked in a continuous process, but that has been the practice. If we were to insist on day work in flour mills we would have to have three times as many flour mills as we have now, involving considerably higher costs. Ordinarily flour mills would be licensed to operate the shift system, even though it is not a continuous process industry, but discretion is exercised. Continuous process industries can work without reference to this, but in other industries this licence is required. That is in accordance with the Convention. The intention is to enable industries where shift work has been the practice to continue to operate on that basis.
Is it not possible for a firm, when it gets a shift-work licence, to get outside the scope of sections which might be considered of advantage to the workers?
Only in respect of whether the shift-work system is to be operated.
No, the 48-hour week will continue.
Perhaps not 56, but 48. The irksome 81 hours in three weeks would come in if this licence was granted. There may be a case in industry where a firm may have an arrangement that the conditions of employment provide that the workers will have a maximum working week of 44 hours, and the Minister may license that firm to undertake shift work, when they come within the category of Section 27. The 44-hour week is gone then. In that case, the test of their working hours is 48 hours—their hours should not exceed 48—averaged over a period of three weeks; and although they had formerly a 44-hour week in one particular week, in this Section 27 they would be required to work 81 hours.
The Deputy does not believe that.
Whether I believe it or not, the workers will have to believe it if they experience it. If a permit is to be given to undertake shift work, I hold that the Minister ought to be able to impose conditions to ensure that the existing conditions will not be disturbed disadvantageously from the worker's point of view.
Of course, there is power to impose conditions of that kind in the section as it stands.
I think that, whatever conditions the Minister imposes, he ought to have one minimum condition, namely, that the existing conditions of the workers shall not be worsened by doing so.
Will the Minister undertake to look into it?
Amendment No. 86, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 30 put and agreed to.
SECTION 31.
(1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act it shall not be lawful for any employer who employs any adult worker to do industrial work in an industrial undertaking on day work to permit such adult worker to—
(a) commence work earlier than the hour of 8 a.m. on any day, or
(b) to continue work after any of the following limits (in this Act referred to as time limits for day work), that is to say:—
(i) the hour of 8 p.m. on any ordinary working day,
(ii) the hour of 1 p.m. on any short day,
(iii) the time in any ordinary working day when such adult worker has completed nine hours' work on that day,
(iv) the time in any week when such adult worker has completed 48 hours' work in that week.
(2) If any employer acts in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
(3) In this Act the expression "day work" means work which is neither continuous process shift work nor licensed shift work.
The next amendment is No. 87, covering amendments Nos. 90, 93, 94 and 95.
I move amendment No. 87:—
In sub-section (1), line 2, before the word "worker" to insert the word "male."
Section 31 provides what are to be the hours of work for male and female adult workers in industry, and the object of amendment No. 87 is to insert the word "male" after the word "adult" in line 2 of Section 31 (1), so as to ensure that the hours fixed in the remainder of the section shall only apply to male workers. There is a later amendment which will provide that, in respect of adult female workers, the hours of work shall terminate, in the case of week-days at 6 p.m., instead of the 8 p.m. in the section, and at 12 o'clock on Saturday instead of 1 p.m. as provided in the section. There are further amendments, the object of which is to reduce the hours of work, although that is not exactly relevant to the matter we are now considering. I think that, running right through the Bill, there has been a recognition that, in respect of female workers, we ought not to impose upon them the arduous conditions which are possible in respect of male workers under the Bill. There has been recognition of the fact that it is desirable that the heaviest portion of the work should be done by male workers, and the Minister has even taken power to prevent the incursion of women into industries where it is thought that their employment is undesirable either in their own interests or in the national interests. The object of amendment No. 87 is to provide that the hours of work set out in the section will apply to male workers so as to provide an early finishing hour in respect of women. In other words, under the section a male workers' normal working day will not be continued after 8 p.m., on any ordinary working day, and it will not be continued after 1 p.m. on any short day. The object of the amendment is to ensure that, while these hours may apply in the case of male workers, in the case of female workers, their working day should end at 6 p.m. on ordinary days and at 12 noon on short days, instead of the 8 p.m. and 1 p.m. respectively, provided in the section.
I do not see that there is any point in this amendment at all. If there is any occupation in which, for any reason, women should not be employed, then the matter would be dealt with under Section 12. If, however, it is decided that in any particular occupation the employment of women is unobjectionable, I see no reason why we should have different starting or finishing hours. In any event, it would be impossible to operate a system in which you would have different starting or finishing hours for men and women in factories where both men and women were employed, as is the case in many if not the majority of factories. I do think, however, that we should modify the section in respect of paragraph (a), which has to do with the commencing hour of work. There will be a number of industries in which that cannot be operated. I think we can make it a much earlier hour than 8 a.m. The ordinary practice, of course, in this country is to start at 8 a.m. or 9 a.m., but there is no reason why the statutory regulation should not permit of starting at an earlier hour. Of course, in such cases, they will be subject to the same requirements in respect of the total number of working hours. I propose, accordingly, to modify paragraph (a) so as permit of an earlier starting hour, but I see no reason for fixing a different finishing hour.
I should like to know from the Minister whether or not it is his intention that, together with that, there should be some other regulations whereby it will be possible to start earlier in the morning than the particular hour he intends to lay down as the regulated hour. As the Minister knows, there are many occupations where men have to go in to work at a very early hour, for the purpose of stoking boilers, and so on.
That is a different matter. I mentioned that matter earlier and said that it would be necessary to exclude from this provision men who had to go in very early in order to do what might be called preparatory work. Such men can be excluded under Section 22.
There are many occupations to which that may apply. Is it the Minister's intention to have any regulations of his own in conjunction with the firms where men are employed and find it necessary to go to work earlier than the hour that may be fixed?
Yes, it is intended to have these men excluded under Section 22.
My reason for mentioning this is that I have already heard a good number of complaints from people interested in this matter.
Yes, I have had some representations myself about it.
What is the case for providing that work may start earlier?
In some industries, such as bakeries, and so on, it is apparently necessary to start early.
Amendment No. 87, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 88, 89 and 90 not moved.
Question proposed: "That Section 31 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, Sir. I should like to call the Minister's attention to some points. While we all could agree that starting at 8 a.m. and finishing at 8 p.m. was ample for an ordinary day, there are certain points about which I should like to ask the Minister. I should like to know how he proposes to deal with them. Take, for instance, travelling time.
For instance, here in Dublin there are a number of skilled workmen whom it is not easy to get in other parts of the country, and it might be quite possible that an employer would receive a wire from the very southwest of the country asking that a workman should be sent down to do a particular job. That would entail his starting by the mail train in the morning. That occurs frequently. Another point which I should like to put before the Minister is that it is quite conceivable that he might be travelling until after eight o'clock that night. Is he to get off the conveyance when 8 p.m. is reached and sleep on the roadside? I think the Minister ought to take into account the case of a workman travelling to or from a job. I think that is the principal point arising on this section. At the same time there are a couple of others which might arise. It might quite easily happen that there was an evening train or bus starting, say, for the sake of argument, at 7.30 in the morning, which would allow the normal working hours to be carried out, and the man to come home. There is another point in connection with which I should like to ask the Minister how it would be dealt with. It is a case where an employer could only get permission for the workers to work at certain specified hours. Would that be a case of a special permit? I suppose it would be specially dealt with? Take for instance a case where a job had to be done in an office, which could only be done, say, for the sake of argument, after 8 p.m. I should like to ask the Minister to consider those three points.
It is intended, as I have explained, to alter paragraph (a) by making an earlier start than 8 a.m. possible in certain cases. The other cases seem to me, at first sight, to be cases which would be covered by regulations under Section 22, the excluding of certain forms of work or work done under certain conditions from the application of this section. I will have that examined to see if it is necessary to make any special provision for that in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Before the amendments are taken to this section I should like to explain to the Dáil that it is intended to recast the section to a considerable extent. The section provides that, in respect of overtime, regulations shall be made. That is in accordance with the International Convention, but having regard to the circumstances in this country, and representations which have been made by particular industries, it seems to me that it is going to be very difficult to deal with matters of overtime by regulation, and I contemplate instead introducing a section which will permit of certain periods of overtime being worked in the course of a year, expressed, as I see it at present, in a percentage of the work permissible under the Bill being worked by way of overtime in the course of a month or a year. Generally, it will make it possible for employers to avail of that overtime condition when circumstances arise, subject to the obligation to pay overtime rates and so forth. I think it will be found easier from the administrative point of view to operate an overtime condition of that kind rather than to undertake the duty of making special regulations for the authorisation of overtime in particular industries. Therefore, discussion upon this section might, perhaps, be left over to the next stage, when the amending section will be introduced.
I would say in reply to the Minister that at first sight that percentage would appear to meet a certain number of difficulties, because while most employers are opposed to overtime in principle they find that it is the lesser of two evils. To my mind the Minister's idea of a percentage would separate the employer who was trying to get two men to do the work of three by working overtime from the employer who genuinely found cases of emergency arising from time to time, which could not be got over by getting in temporary workers, who possibly knew nothing about the particular form of work, or the place in which they had to carry it out.
Would the Minister say what percentage he has in his mind in respect of the suggested recasting?
You would have to have two or three percentages. You would have to provide for not more than, say, 20 per cent. in a week or 10 per cent. in a year, with perhaps even an intermediate percentage in a month, so that you would allow an employer to deal with particular rushes of work arising at certain times of the year, but subject to an overriding maximum in respect of a whole year. The suggestions that have been made are 20 per cent. in a week or 10 per cent. in a year. I am not saying that those would be the final figures introduced; they would be something about that.
The amendments to Section 32 will not therefore be moved at this stage.
It will not be required. If we have a percentage provision there will be no consultation with anybody. The statutory provision will be there, and there will be no need for consultation.
Some of these amendments would fall owing to decisions on preceding amendments, but that can be settled later.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 33.
(1) Save as otherwise provided by this Act, it shall not be lawful for any employer who employs any young person to do industrial work in an industrial undertaking on day work to permit such young person to—
(a) commence work earlier than the hour of 8 a.m. on any day, or
(b) to continue work after any of the following limits (in this Act referred to as time limits of day work for young persons), that is to say:—
(i) the hour of 8 p.m. on any day,
(ii) the hour of 1 p.m. on any short day,
(iii) the time in any ordinary working day when such young person has completed eight hours work on that day,
(iv) the time in any short day when such young person has completed four hours work on that short day,
(v) the time in any week when such young person has completed forty hours work in that week.
(2) If any employer acts in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
I move amendment No. 98:—
Before Section 33 to insert the following section:—
(1) Save as otherwise provided in this section, the provisions of this Act shall apply and have effect mutatis mutandis in relation to the employment of persons employed as night watchmen in an industrial undertaking. In its application to the employment of night watchman, the provisions of this Act, relating to the time at which such employment may lawfully commence and terminate on any day and the provisions relating to the meal interval, the short day, the limitation of the working hours, intervals in work, public holidays and Sundays shall cease to have effect and in lieu thereof the following provisions shall apply, that is to say, no person under twenty-one years of age shall be employed as a night watchman and every night watchman shall be entitled to twenty-four hours continuous rest in each period of seven days and shall be paid in respect of time worked in excess of forty-two hours in any week at the over-time rate. For the purpose of this section the expression “overtime rate” shall have the same meaning as in Section 36 of this Act.
(2) If any employer acts in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence under this section.
This amendment seeks to deal with the position of a night watchman in an industrial undertaking. I take it from the provisions of the Bill that a night watchman, even if employed in an industrial undertaking, would not come within the scope of the Bill because he is not engaged in the particular form of industrial work referred to in the Bill, and "watching" would hardly be described as industrial work under the Bill. If there is an industrial operation being performed, and as part of that industrial operation it is desirable to leave some person there to watch the implements, and to take care that no accident is caused arising out of that industrial work, and that the worker is dealing with the tools common to this particular industrial operation so that his general line of work can be described as ancillary to that kind of industrial operation. I think this is as convenient a Bill to bring him into as any other Bill may be. The amendment is specially drawn to ensure that a watchman in an industrial undertaking is a person entitled to benefit. It is particularly related to that kind of watchman rather than to a watchman, say, in a bank or a commercial establishment. I think the Minister will be aware of the fact that the hours worked by a watchman are at present extremely long. The work of watching at present consists of the imposition of an endurance test on those so employed. It may be alleged of course that some of them sleep for portions of the time, but I do not think the Legislature ought to envy sleep in the circumstances under which it is enjoyed by a night watchman, particularly in the winter period of the year, and persons who follow this occupation have not a passport to get employment in the summer periods only, when perhaps sleep under such circumstances might appeal to many members of this House. I think the provision as to a 42-hour week will hardly now be applied in view of a previous decision, but at all events there is a case for bringing night watchmen in an industrial establishment within the scope of this Bill. I think they will fit into it much more conveniently perhaps than into another Bill which may not be dealing so specifically with industrial employment.
I am afraid I cannot agree with the Deputy. I do not think there is any similarity between the work done by a night watchman and the work of an industrial worker. I do not think there is, in respect of such people, the same obligation to protect them in the way of hours of work, holidays, rest intervals and so on. It may be necessary at some stage to regulate their conditions of employment, but it will be an entirely different basis to industrial work proper, which is obviously much more wearying and strenuous on the individual than the work of a night watchman.
I introduced a deputation of night watchmen to the Minister, and I think they convinced him that their occupation was not one to be envied. People talk as if a night watchman's job was in itself a badge of laziness.
It is not strenuous? I am glad the Minister has entered into the domain of industrial fatigue research. To suggest it is not strenuous for a watchman to start work about six or seven o'clock in the evening and watch until eight o'clock in the morning, and do that for seven days a week, in such a month, for instance, as November, and to suggest that a person employed for these long hours, compelled to disorder his life from the standpoint of sleep, is not engaged in a strenuous occupation, will, I think, flabbergast most people who have any experience of these workers. These night watchmen are compelled to work exceptionally long hours under conditions which are by no means such as to make even the Minister envious. I think there is a strong case for the curtailment of the long hours which night watchmen are compelled to work. If the Minister is not willing to do it in this Bill, I would like to know what he proposes to do in respect of that category of workers, with what general group of workers does he propose to classify them and in what particular way. I disagree completely with the Minister when he says that night watchmen's work is not strenuous. I think it is strenuous. Anything that keeps a worker out of his bed during the night is obviously a strenuous occupation.
He sleeps during the day.
That may be true, but I suggest to Deputy Kelly that if he sits in his present seat all night to-night, I do not think that his temper will be the most amiable to-morrow morning.
Mr. Kelly
I sleep portion of the time here, day or night.
Deputy Kelly may have special qualifications in that respect.
Mr. Kelly
If Deputy Kelly had to sit, even in the most comfortable armchair, in O'Connell Street in the month of November for 12 hours during the night, I think he would not say that the occupation was a very congenial one.
Mr. Kelly
Sitting at a fire with a number of people around, talking all the time.
Deputy Kelly seems to think that a night watchman's task consists of sitting at a fire with people talking to him all night. I do not think that is a compensation for a person who ought normally to be in bed.
Mr. Kelly
Unfortunately, most watchmen have very little choice in exercising their taste. They are driven to this employment through economic causes; they must stay there or suffer the consequences.
Mr. Kelly
I never knew a night watchman to approach me with a grievance.
I can understand that, because Deputy Kelly thinks their duty consists of talking through the night in the glow of a very good fire, municipally provided. Has the Minister any proposals to offer in regard to those people?
I could not answer that question at the moment, because I have not considered the matter. I do not think the conditions of employment of night watchmen are such that there is an urgent necessity for the institution of a 42-hour week.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 99:—
In sub-section (1) (b) (i), line 15, to delete the figure "8" and substitute the figure "6".
In this section we are dealing with the working hours of young persons in industry, and under the definition section, a young person means a worker whose age is less than 18 and more than 14. This particular section has effect in its application to persons between the ages of 14 and 18 years. Under this section it is possible for such a young person to be employed up to 8 p.m. every day, and 1 p.m. on the short day. There may be a difference of opinion as to whether there is much real value between 12 noon and 1 p.m. on a short day, but I think there is a decided social advantage for young persons to be enabled to be off at 6 o'clock in the evening instead of 8 o'clock, as suggested in the section.
Eight o'clock is not suggested in the section.
Eight o'clock is the maximum.
Eight hours after the hour of commencing work.
It should not be possible to employ a young person up to 8 p.m., no matter at what time that person starts work. It is desirable to encourage such persons to get the maximum amount of recreation possible. Generally speaking, the evening is the time at which that recreation can be most conveniently obtained. It is desirable to encourage young persons to continue studies or attendance at educational classes of one kind or another. If such persons are required to work to 8 p.m., or are not prohibited from working after 6 p.m., these two desirable objectives are interfered with. The Minister has rightly taken the view that young persons require to be dealt with in a very special way, and you cannot apply the ordinary industrial standards to them. I think the Minister might go further, and agree to substitute 6 for 8 p.m. in the section. If he does that he will be facilitating two desirable objectives, the pursuance of further educational training and making available to young persons between 14 and 18 years recreation which, it is generally admitted, can only be obtained in the evening.
I do not think the Deputy has made any case for the amendment. He is again making the mistake of assuming that what we fix as the outside limit of working conditions are going to be, in fact, the normal conditions. The section says a young person cannot be employed for more than eight hours a day or 40 hours a week, and must not be employed after 8 p.m. on any day. In practice the ordinary working day will end much earlier than 8 p.m. for young persons, and I see no reason why we should have a different provision in this instance. There is no special need for such special provision, having regard to the fact that the working week is 40 hours and the working day is eight hours.
It is quite true that the section fixes the maximum period at which a young man may be employed. I am well aware that this is the object of the section—the fixing of that maximum period, as well as the doing of other things. I think there are very definite social advantages in releasing a young person from work earlier than 6 p.m.
Under this section young persons will be released much earlier than 6 p.m.
Quite. But it is also possible that they will be brought in earlier in the day.
They will get more sleep in the morning.
We are not concerned with more sleep in the morning. It is with the educational and recreative aspect of the matter that we are concerned. I think from the point of view of our chief objective—recreation and education—there are advantages in releasing a person earlier. If that person is brought into work earlier there is an advantage. But I do not think there is the same advantage to the employer in bringing a person in earlier in the morning. It might suit the convenience of the employer to have the young person brought in later and to have him set to work later. But we should set our faces against that in order to facilitate the opportunities for education and recreation.
You must allow a certain margin.
I think the margin as fixed here is more for adult workers.
A person making ice cream——
Is that an industrial occupation?
Is the Minister certain that making ice cream is an industrial occupation?
Except we exclude it under the definition of domestic work.
There will be considerable rejoicing in Rome if making ice cream is an industrial occupation.
I have had no representations made that this amendment is desirable.
Whom does the Minister want to make representations?
Any organisation representative of juvenile industrial workers.
What organisation has the Minister in mind?
Nobody has yet made a case for any such modification of the section as the Deputy suggests.
Who is to be the judge of the case to be made—is it the Minister?
The members of the Dáil present.
You cannot even get a House.
The Deputy is the only member of his own Party present.
The amendment is withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 101, 102 and 117 are together.
Amendment No. 117 is consequential on the other two.
I will not move amendment No. 101.
Amendment No. 101 will govern Nos. 102 or 117.
Not quite. He is not moving No. 101. Amendment No. 102 governs No. 117.
I move amendment No. 102:—
In sub-section (1) (b) (v), line 23, to delete the word "forty" and substitute the word "thirty-five".
The section fixes the maximum working week for young persons at 40 hours. We must bear in mind that "young persons," for the purposes of this Bill, are persons between the ages of 14 and 18 years. The Legislature is now saying that it is desirable that a vigorous full grown man in the prime of life should not be asked to work more than 48 hours in the week. But it is going to ask a young child of 14 to 18 years, a person undeveloped, just in an adolescent state, to work 40 hours per week. I think the fixation of 40 hours for a young person between 14 and 18 years of age is altogether too long. If the State says that 48 hours is the maximum that a healthy man should be asked to work, then 40 hours is much too long for a young person. I ask Deputies to remember that we are dealing with the future citizens whose physique should be a precious possession to the nation. We should not bring these young persons in close contact with such violent impact with modern industrial life for 40 hours a week. The maximum should be 35 hours for young persons. If we are going to say that it is desirable to limit the control of the employment of young persons in industrial life, it is desirable to restrict their employment much more than is provided in this section. I hope the Minister will tell the House that he does not stand for asking young persons to work a 40 hour week under modern industrial conditions where you have rationalisation and all the modern speeding up processes that former generations have never known. These conditions are bound to be ruinous to the health of the young persons if the hours are 40 a week. I think 35 hours a week is more than sufficient. My only doubt is as to whether a 35 hour week is too long in respect of young persons. The House should make provision for having the hours less than 40.
Deputy Norton seems to think that the rising generation are very tender sprouts. He even doubts whether a 35 hour week is too long. I see no objection to asking young persons to work a 40 hour week; it is a substantial reduction. When I started working I was only 14 years of age, and I worked 56 hours a week; I do not say that my work was too unduly arduous or that the work had any very great injurious effect upon my health. By this Bill we are reducing the hours from 48 to 40, and I think there are very few young persons who will not stagger through a 40 hour week.
Is that the point of the Minister—that the person is to stagger through his work?
No; what I meant to say was that I do not think there is any occupation in which young persons will not be able to go through a 40 hour week without any bad effect on their health. I read in the papers last week that the American boxer who entered the ring with Jack Doyle was only 17 years of age, and people of that kind must be considered as well as the tender, delicate people about whom Deputy Norton is so much concerned.
This Bill does not concern boxers.
I think I would prefer to do any sort of hard work rather than to enter the ring against a boxer like Jack Doyle. At all events, to my mind the position, as far as the Deputy is concerned, is this, that if I had made it 35 instead of 40 the Deputy would have put down an amendment to reduce the 35 to 30. No matter what figure I put down, the Deputy would be trying to go one better. The Deputy knows that 40 hours is a great improvement on present conditions, and that it is not at all too long.
I do not approach this thing at all in the light-hearted manner in which the Minister seems to approach it. We are dealing with a position where the State says that the adult male worker, fully developed physically and mentally, shall not be required to work more than 48 hours per week.
Not for physical reasons.
I did not say for physical reasons. If the Minister wants the reasons, I presume they are social, national and economic. It is assumed that 48 hours per week is the maximum desirable, having regard to these factors, to permit an adult male worker to work. When we are fixing 48 hours per week for such persons we have in mind that, in fact, it is generally recognised, without regard to these factors which we take cognisance of in fixing the hours in this Bill, that 48 hours per week is as much as you could reasonably ask a person to work in existing circumstances in these particular industries, because these hours of work have been fixed without any particular regard to social, national or economic conditions.
These hours of work which exist at present—48 hours per week and, in many cases, substantially less than 48 hours—have been fixed as a result, in the main, of a trial of strength between the employers, on the one hand and the workers, on the other hand. We can, therefore, say that, generally speaking, whatever hours of work exist at present have been arbitrarily fixed, the consideration in fixing them largely being a trial of strength between the employers, on the one hand, and the workers on the other hand. But if we fix a maximum working week of 48 hours for adult male workers in the prime of life, I say that we are not acting fairly towards the young persons between 14 and 18 years of age in fixing a working week of 40 hours, because it bears too close a relationship to the maximum hours which are permitted in the case of adult male workers. If 48 hours is considered to be the maximum for which we ought to employ an adult male worker, then I think the hours of work for persons less than 18 years of age and over 14 years of age should be something less than 40 hours per week. There is nothing very new or very novel in asking for a working week of 35 hours in such circumstances.
I think if the Minister asks his advisers, he will discover European precedent for young workers being treated specially in the case of employment. The whole Bill itself recognises the special claims of young persons in industry. I say that 40 hours is much too long for a working week, and that 35 hours is adequate, not merely having regard to industrial requirements, but having regard to the desirability of promoting healthy citizenship in future. The Minister quoted cases of persons who went into employment at 14 years of age, and feel all the better now. The Minister seems to think that because he entered employment when he was 14 years of age, he is now the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
It obviously impaired my mentality.
The Minister might have been President if he stayed away from work until he was 16, or he might have been Governor-General if he stayed away from work until he was 18.
We do not know what beneficial consequences would have followed if the Minister had stayed at school a little longer. I do not think that is a valid argument in dealing with this particular problem in this Bill, and I think the Minister might reasonably agree to the 35 hours a week suggested in the amendment.
I want to point out to Deputy Norton that if he wants to start on that campaign he should start with the Department of Education. I suggest that children under 14 who are at school during school hours, and doing home work at home, are doing 40 hours per week.
If they are, it is under the Minister's administration, not mine.
Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 26.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael,
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
Níl
- Anthony, Richard.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Desmond, William.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian
- Coburn, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Davin, William.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- Pattison, James P.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Keyes and Everett.
Question declared carried.
Question—"That Section 35 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 34.
(1) The Minister, if he is satisfied that young persons employed to do any form of industrial work are so employed as assistants to adult workers and that the work of such adult workers could not proceed if such young persons did not work for the same hours as such adult workers, may by order make regulations in accordance with this section directing that young persons while doing such form of industrial work shall be deemed to be adult workers for the purposes of this Act.
(2) The Minister shall not make regulations in respect of any form of industrial work under this section unless he has first consulted with persons who in his opinion are representative of employers interested in such form of industrial work and with persons who in his opinion are representative of workers so interested.
(3) Whenever regulations made under and in accordance with this section are for the time being in force the young persons to whom such regulations relate shall be deemed to be adult workers for the purposes of this Act while doing the form of industrial work in respect of which such regulations are made.
I move amendment No. 103.
In sub-section (1), lines 26 and 31, before the word "young" to insert the word "male" in each line.
This amendment deals with the section in which power is taken to extend the hours of employment of any young person. The State, in Section 33, is taking the view that certain hours of work ought to be the normal hours, but there is power taken in Section 34 to extend the hours of young persons. I want, in this amendment, to secure that the young persons whose hours are extended will be male rather than female persons. Perhaps, a case might be made for the young male worker to see the whole process of the adult worker in respect of his trade; but I do not think that the same case could be made in respect of females, so that where we are dealing with an exceptional position here we ought, I think, to make the section applicable to males and not to females, and in that way limit the extension purpose of the section.
I cannot see why, if it is desirable that this power should be exercised at all in relation to male juvenile workers, it should not extend to females as well. The extension can only have effect if the Minister is satisfied that the young persons are employed as assistants to adult workers, and that the work of such adult workers could not be proceeded with if the young persons did not work the same hours as the adults. That can apply in the case of females as well as males. Whatever case might exist for the extension of the hours of male juvenile workers, the same case can be made in respect of female juveniles in corresponding circumstances.
I think the effect of the extension under this section will be that the Minister will be bombarded with requests that young persons should be allowed to work abnormally long hours, and not the normal hours suggested in Section 33. And, in a choice of that kind, the employer will naturally want to work for the longest hours the labour which is cheapest.
The regulation can only be made if the work of the adult could not be proceeded with without the assistance of the juvenile, and before the regulations are made the Minister must consult the representatives of the workers.
I think the Minister will agree that, in respect of this extension, there is enormous scope for all kinds of pressure to be brought to bear upon the Minister to consent to the extension of the hours of young persons. If we are fixing in Section 33 certain maximum hours of work, I think it is undesirable that we should open the door to what I fear will be wholesale exemptions to the normal hours as defined in Section 33. The object of the amendment is to limit the kind of persons whose hours can be so extended and a later amendment is designed to restrict the number of persons whose hours can be so extended, having regard to the age of the person. If the section were going to be used only in very extreme or exceptional circumstances——
Only in the circumstances set out in sub-section (1).
My fear is that, as it is drawn and as it is expressed here, the Minister, as a matter of course, will have pressure brought to bear upon him to exclude certain young workers from the scope of this Bill, because if employers have been used to having young workers working the same hours as others, I think that there would naturally be an attempt to create an agitation if the young workers are permitted to cease work some hours before the adult workers. In that way, I think a situation would be created in which the Minister will find it difficult to resist that particular kind of pressure.
There will be no difficulty in resisting that kind of pressure unless it can be shown, and shown in the presence of the representatives of the workers, that it is necessary that the juvenile worker should work the same hours as the adult worker, to enable the work of the adult worker to be done at all.
Would the Minister say what he has in mind in granting these extensions? It is quite possible that it may not be shown that it is necessary to employ all the young workers up to the same hours as the adult workers. It may be necessary to employ only a small number to assist such adults whose work is not yet finished; in other words, the adults who will work longer than the young persons referred to in the section. Confronted with circumstances of that kind, will the Minister say what he proposes to do in granting the exemptions? Is there to be a permit to the employer to select whom he likes to remain on or is any preference going to be given by the Minister in respect of retaining the older of the young workers rather than any persons whom the employer might care to select, irrespective of their ages?
The power in this section is not exercisable by way of permit given to a particular employer but by way of regulations made covering forms of industrial work. The circumstances will arise that in some industry it was demonstrated and agreed that the working of juvenile workers for a 48-hour week was necessary to enable work to be done at all by adult workers up to 48 hours. In such a case, a regulation would be made in respect of that particular industrial work, enabling young persons to be so employed up to 48 hours.
What forms of industrial work has the Minister in mind?
There will be certain occupations in which young persons are employed as assistants to adults.
Take the clothing industry. Is that one?
I scarcely think so, from what I know of it. I do not profess to be familiar with the details of every industry. What we intend to provide is that where young persons are employed as workers, in the ordinary way, to do work which is required to be done, and which can be done by young persons, the ordinary working week should be 40 hours, but where a young person is employed, the work being performed, in the main, by adult workers, if it is necessary to do so, we can grant an extension of the juvenile working time.
I am sure that considerable representations have been made to the Minister on this Bill, and probably this section was adverted to. Can the Minister say to what extent, expressed in a percentage, he anticipates these exemptions will be granted?
I do not think I had any representations on this section, except one which dealt not with the details of the section but with a general matter. It was contended that there might be difficulty in some industries if certain juvenile workers had a 40-hour and others a 48-hour week, and that there might be difficulties created in respect of rates of pay and that sort of thing, having regard to the fact that the reduction to 40 hours must not reduce the wages of the workers whose hours are so reduced. I have not had any representations on other grounds that this section would be difficult to work, nor have I had any indications that many applications under it are likely to be made.
Are we to assume from that that very few will be made?
The Deputy can assume this, that I would, under no circumstances, make regulations unless I was satisfied that such regulations were necessary to enable work done by adult workers to be proceeded with.
Amendment withdrawn.
The following amendment was on the Order Paper:—
104. In sub-section (1), line 32, before the word "while" to insert the words "who are not under the age of seventeen years."—William Norton.
The same arguments apply there.
In granting exemptions, will the Minister undertake to try to ensure that the exemption will be granted only in respect of the older section of that category of workers?
There is no power to require that under the section as drafted.
Would the Minister examine it?
It would be very difficult to do it without having a certain discretion in the Minister which I do not think it desirable to have.
I think it is desirable to have it.
I will look into it and see if there should be any power to attach conditions to a regulation.
Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.
The following amendment also stood on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy Norton:—
106. To add at the end of sub-section (2) the following words:—"and in any event no such regulation shall have effect in respect of any industrial undertaking if the number of young persons employed to do industrial work in such undertaking bears to the number of other workers so employed in such undertaking a proportion greater than 20 per cent."
If we are to have conditions attaching to the regulations, this is obviously one of the matters that would come under these conditions.
Except that there is a stronger case for making some portions of the conditions under which the exemption may be granted more definite than others. We do not want the case of one person producing one commodity and a lot of others running after it when it comes out.
The Deputy is afraid that 50 juvenile workers might be considered necessary to enable one adult worker to proceed with his work?
I want to guard against this possibility: There is a certain kind of factory in existence, let us say, which employs mainly young persons between the ages of 14 and 18; this Bill is passed, and what they proceed to do in order to defeat this Bill is to employ one man at some kind of occupation and say that it is necessary for these young persons to be employed for as long as the man is employed. Consequently, they could get exemption under this section.
They would have some difficulty in proving that case, but I will look into it.
Amendment not moved.
Amendment No. 107 not moved.
The following amendment stood on the Order Paper in the names of Deputies McGilligan and Beckett:
108. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
This section shall not apply in the case of an emergency of which notification has been given to the Minister in accordance with sub-section (6) of Section 32 of this Act.
I think we should have one emergency section dealing with emergencies of all kinds, and I think we had better discuss what that should be on the relevant section of the Bill. I do not think it desirable that we should have emergency provisions tacked on to particular sections, but that we should have one general provision dealing with emergencies of all kinds such as is proposed to Section 46. I agree that Section 46 must be extended, but we can discuss that when we come to it.
Will the Minister look after that aspect of the matter?
Amendment No. 108 not moved.
Section 34 agreed to.
SECTION 35.
The following amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy Norton:—
Regulations made under this section shall not have effect in respect of any industrial undertaking if the number of young persons employed to do industrial work in such undertaking bears to the number of other workers so employed in such undertaking a proportion greater than 20 per cent.
In the case of Section 35, we will have to consider the same matters as will arise in connection with the redrafting of Section 32. They both deal with overtime regulations, and I think we will have to tackle both in much the same way.
Amendment not moved.
Amendments Nos. 110, 111 and 112 not moved.
Amendment No. 113 not moved.
In any event I think we shall have to deal with the overtime of young persons on a percentage basis, as in the other section. Perhaps the matter might be left over and taken again on Report.
Amendments Nos. 114 and 115 not moved.
Section 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 not moved.
SECTION 36.
Question proposed: "That Section 36 stand part of the Bill."
Could the Minister tell us what is the meaning of sub-section (2) of this section?
I do not know what the Deputy's difficulty is. The section provides that
where in any week any employer who employs any worker to do industrial work for a salary or wages, permits any worker to work weekly overtime, and the weekly overtime worked by such worker exceeds the total daily overtime worked by such worker in that week, such employer shall be deemed to have agreed to pay such worker at the overtime rate for the amount of time which is the difference between such total and such weekly overtime in addition to any other remuneration which such worker may be entitled to receive for such daily overtime.
It is possible to have, under the provisions of the Bill, a daily overtime and a weekly overtime. If the weekly overtime exceeds the daily overtime, then in respect of that additional overtime the employer must pay at the overtime rate. It is a somewhat complicated provision, but if I knew what the Deputy's difficulty was I could explain it to him more clearly.
Let us say for the sake of argument that there is a 44-hour week. The worker has worked, say, 50 hours. That means that he has worked six hours at the overtime rate, according to the weekly calculation. Is that right?
And if he has worked two hours on one day, he will have worked one quarter of the day at overtime rates. Is that the Minister's idea?
I shall give the Deputy this example: A person may work overtime on one day. We maintain that in respect of the overtime worked on that day the person shall be entitled to be paid at the overtime rate, even though on the next day he worked short time, and even though the total of the weekly hours is not exceeded. Similarly, you could have a person working within the limits prescribed for each day, but nevertheless exceeding the weekly number of hours permitted. Therefore in respect of these additional hours overtime rate will also be paid.
I should like if the Minister would calculate in a given case the overtime a person would be entitled to. Say that a worker works ten hours for five days of the week, and for five hours on a Saturday. His daily overtime amounts to ten hours, and his weekly overtime to seven hours. What overtime would that person be paid having regard to the terms of sub-section (2) of Section 36?
I am afraid I do not get the Deputy's example.
Supposing a person works ten hours a day for five days, and on Saturday works five hours. His daily overtime is two hours per day, and his weekly overtime seven hours. How many hours overtime would be paid for, having regard to the construction of the sub-section?
That person would be entitled to pay in respect of overtime for each day of the five, and then, having regard to the fact that the weekly time was exceeded, he would also have to be paid additional overtime in respect of the week worked, even though on Saturday he did not exceed the daily limit.
Does that mean that a person is entitled to two hours overtime for each day of the five and that he is also entitled to seven hours overtime on his weekly aggregate?
He would be entitled to seven hours' overtime if he has done 55 hours in the week.
He would be entitled to seven hours?
So far as I follow the Deputy I think so. What is intended to be provided is that even though the daily hours permitted to be worked by a worker are not exceeded, nevertheless if the total for the week exceeds the weekly hours permitted, overtime must be paid. That would still apply even though the worker had exceeded on one or two days the daily hours and would be paid overtime in respect of the hours worked on these days.
Which calculation is going to prevail?
Is it the weekly or the daily?
Let the Deputy try his hand at interpreting it.
I confess that I have failed at it.
Where the weekly overtime exceeds the daily overtime, the worker has to be paid overtime rates for the hours represented by the difference between the daily and the weekly overtime.
Is not the case I quoted really typical? A man works ten hours a day for five days and on Saturday works five hours. I say that under sub-section (2) he would be paid seven hours at the weekly overtime rate and 10 hours daily overtime.
That is where the total of the weekly overtime exceeds the daily overtime.
I do not know what the Minister is trying to do but I want this man's overtime calculated through this section.
There is no weekly overtime payable except the weekly hours overtime exceed the daily. That man has worked 10 hours daily overtime and 7 hours weekly.
What would he be paid for?
He would be paid for the day's overtime.
I suggest he would be paid for the weekly overtime having regard to the wording of this sub-section.
The Minister gave a verdict in my favour a couple of moments ago.
I misunderstood the Deputy's point. The sub-section only applies where the weekly overtime exceeds the daily overtime.
I do not think it is so expressed.
It is definitely so expressed.
If the Minister is satisfied with the sub-section I am.
I think the section could be made clearer.
I shall attempt to clarify it if I can.
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment No. 118 not moved.
Section 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Section 38 agreed to.
SECTION 39.
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any employer to permit any young person not being a young person deemed to be an adult for the purposes of this Act, to do for him any industrial work at any time in the period (in this section referred to as the prohibited period) between the hour of 8 p.m. on any day and the hour of 8 a.m. on the following day unless such young person is a male young person and is so employed under and in accordance with regulations made by the Minister under this section.
(2) The Minister may by order make regulations authorising the employment of male young persons whose age is over sixteen years to carry on at any time in the prohibited period any of the following forms of industrial work, that is to say:—
(a) processes in which reverberatory or regenerative furnaces are used for the manufacture of iron and steel and the galvanising of sheet metal or wire (except the pickling process):
(b) manufacture of glass;
(c) manufacture of paper;
(d) manufacture of raw sugar;
(e) gold mining reduction work;
and the Minister may by such regulations impose in respect of such employment such conditions, limitations or restrictions as he may think proper.
I move amendment No. 120:—
In sub-section (1) to delete all words after the word "day," line 31 to the end of the sub-section.
I am moving the amendment mainly with the object of getting some information from the Minister. Will the Minister say what case can be made for the employment of young persons between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. While it might appear that the object of the section is to restrict the employment of young persons at night, sub-section (1), in fact, permits of their employment at night.
The Deputy will see that sub-section (2) provides that the Minister may by order make regulations authorising the employment of male young persons over 16 years of age in the continuous process industries set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the sub-section.
Would the Minister indicate in what way it is likely this section will be used? Is it intended to permit of the employment of young persons in any of the occupations set out between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m.? To what extent is it likely that the section, in general, will be availed of, particularly in relation to paragraph (e)?
Well, take paragraphs (a) and (b).
These are industries which must be carried on by a continuous process, and if young persons are to be given an opportunity of learning the work associated with them they must be employed at night as well as during the day. It is because of that that we are imposing the restriction that the only persons who may be employed are male young persons over 16, and then only when regulations controlling their employment have been made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
There is surely no difference in the quality of glass manufactured between 2 and 3 p.m. and 2 and 3 in the night. It is glass manufacture in any case. I should think that young persons could learn all that they need to about that particular process if employed during the day.
I am not dealing now with apprentices but with people who are there as learners or assistants to the male workers.
People of 16 years of age?
Well, 24 hours over 16 would qualify them under the section. Is it contemplated that a large number of young persons will be permitted to be employed during the night? Has the Minister any estimate of the number of persons who will be so employed?
Is it contemplated, for instance, that the section will not be used at all?
It is contemplated that the section will be used in so far as those young persons are employed. In so far as they are employed in connection with these industries, then it is proposed to allow them to be employed at night to the same extent as during the day, but only in respect of the industries enumerated and under regulations made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
The important thing to be considered is what is laid down in the section, and not what the Minister's intention is or what the intentions of his successor may be. Can the Minister give any reason as to the necessity for night work by young persons? That is the whole question.
Precisely. If they are required in connection with the working of these industries during the day, then they will be equally required during the night. This section will enable them to be employed during the night, but under regulations.
I take it the Minister is assuming that a young person over 16 or 17 years of age may be engaged on the same work as a fully-matured man drawing the highest wages? Is that the intention? Unless this is for the purpose of meeting the case of an assistant or of an improver who needs to add to his knowledge, there is no case for the employment of young people at night. Had the Minister, before agreeing to put this section into the Bill, any representations made to him as to the necessity for it? The Minister ought to give some of the reasons which prompted him to insert this section. Unless it is absolutely necessary, it is, in my opinion, undesirable that young persons of 16 or even 18 should be obliged to work at night. Would the Minister give the House some reason for this section?
One reason is that you cannot overload one shift with the task of training young people in these processes of industry. That was recognised by the International Convention which dealt with these matters. The International Convention contemplated the employment of male young persons under regulation in these industries.
But is there not some regulation to the effect that the number of young persons engaged should have a certain relation to the number of adults employed?
So that a whole industry might be run by young persons?
Regulations may be made under Section 11, but it does not follow that they will be made.
Therefore, an industry may be completely manned by persons of 16 years of age if an employer so decides?
Unless regulations to prohibit that are made under Section 11.
Before we give the Minister the wide powers that he is seeking in this section——
I have these powers already. They are embodied in the existing law.
I know, but we can repeal the existing law and prevent the passage of some portion of the section which would strengthen the position under the existing law considerably. I do not think the Minister has made a case for this section. He is not able to tell us the number of young persons likely to be employed during the night. I think, in connection with a section of this kind, the Minister should give us some more information than he has given. I observe that power is being taken to employ young persons over 16 years in "gold mining reduction work." Quite apart from the fact that that kind of work is now of unusual importance in this country, this seems to me to be a sort of blanketing authority for the Minister.
The industries set out in the section are the industries mentioned in the existing law. That is why they appear here.
But it does not follow that it is necessarily right to put them in this section simply because they are in the existing law.
It is one good reason for keeping them in. We have no reason for keeping them out.
The Minister is becoming a slave to all these British practices. This, of course, is part of British law, and, therefore, that is a good enough reason for putting them in, I suppose?
It is also part of the International Convention.
We are setting out to frame in 1935 a code of industrial legislation for this country. An international convention, in order to get the consent of everybody represented at an international conference, must obviously be wide in its scope. At an international conference it might be necessary to put into a convention something relating to ships, to please Great Britain, but Switzerland would have very little interest in that. Still it goes in. That is no reason why the Swiss should copy it when they are implementing the convention.
They must if they are going to ratify it.
The Minister knows well that if there is substantially the same or improved legislation in force, the ratification of the convention is an entirely different matter.
We ratified conventions with regard to the abolition of opium traffic although there was no opium traffic here.
There are certain advantages available at Geneva by so doing. The Minister did not ratify a lot of other conventions. He was keen on ratifying the convention with regard to the prohibition of opium but he did not ratify a lot of other conventions more important than the opium convention. The Minister is taking this provision out of an existing Act and putting it into this Bill so that he may be armed with wide powers to the use of which he has not, apparently, given much consideration. It seems to me that the whole case for this section is not based on need but on the fact that it was in an existing Act and, therefore, should be put into this Bill.
As there was no reason to change it.
That might be a legitimate argument in certain circumstances but the Minister is asking the House to accept the view that he should be empowered to make regulations exempting young persons in respect of prohibited periods in connection with, for instance, gold mining reduction work. What is the need for putting this piece of dead timber into the Bill?
It is obsolete law—as dead as the dodo. The Minister should try to get away from the Queen Anne pattern which he is endeavouring to preserve in our legislation. If paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) have been put into this section with as little thought as (e), there does not seem to be any case for the section at all. I got the impression, from what the Minister omitted to say in support of this section, that he is putting it in without having made any precise examination as to whether, or not, there is need for it. I propose to press one of these amendments, as no case has been made for the section.
Certainly no case has been made against it.
Does Deputy Norton propose to press amendment No. 121?
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 31.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Good, John.
- Goulding, John.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
Níl
- Anthony, Richard
- Brennan, Michael.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Davin, William.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Nally, Martin.
- Norton, William.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Everett and Keyes.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment No. 121:—
To delete sub-section (2).
I suggest to the Minister that he should have a further look at this section, so as to eliminate from it the processes that he does not think are necessary. The Minister said that he took it from an existing Act. That is not a sufficient reason for the adoption of the section. I suggest that the Minister should endeavour to limit the number of industrial processes with which this section is concerned.
We must have a law to provide for them. Even though these industries do not exist here now, if they should be established, we would be in a peculiar position, if we had not legislation for immediate application. The only one of these industries that exists here at present is the sugar industry.
I take it that an international convention does not prevent the Minister doing something better which will obviously be an improvement.
In a non-industrial country that is in competition with highly industrialised ones. The Deputy wants us to go one better.
I am glad that the Deputy has come into the controversy for the purpose, apparently, of atoning for his past action.
The legislation passed in respect to the employment of young persons in connection with the sugar beet factories. I am glad that the Deputy is now repenting of his past action.
What was the past action?
Permitting young persons to be employed. It is a matter of congratulation that the Deputy has been converted to a reasonable point of view. Some of these operations are not carried on in this country. They are certainly not carried on during the periods referred to in the section.
Why should we put in a provision for the granting of exemption in other cases? What is the value of putting a provision of that kind into a section like this?
The same circumstances which operate in the case of sugar might operate if these other industries were established. The regulations in connection with sugar were made because the conditions under which sugar is made at night are different to the conditions that operate in the day time. There are different atmospheric conditions and other technical matters and, in order to learn these processes properly, they have to do so at night as well as during daylight.
Suppose we start gold mining reduction work, would we not want to have young people employed in a certain way?
Why did the Deputy vote against the last amendment?
I voted against a particular amendment.
I am arguing in relation to a certain set of things which may arise in one of these processes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 122 not moved.
Question—"That Section 39 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Progress reported. The Committee to sit again to-morrow.
