Conditions of Employment Bill, 1935—Report Stage (Re-Committed).
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 3, section 2, line 28, after the word "service" to add the words "or is carried on by a local authority or other public body in the exercise or performance of statutory powers or duties."
This amendment is for the purpose of extending the definition of an industrial undertaking, and to make it clear that the definition covers an industrial undertaking carried on by a local authority or other public body, in the exercise of the provisions of statutory powers or duties.
Amendment agreed to.
On a point of procedure, is it necessary to move that the Bill be recommitted for the purpose of these amendments?
The Minister desires to recommit the Bill for the purpose of the amendments.
Agreed that the Bill be recommitted.
I presume so, since the Minister has made no exception. The Minister, I understand, desires to take the Report Stage proper at another date, and to report back to the House the amendments made at this stage.
Will there be an opportunity of putting in any further amendments?
That is a matter for the Chair.
That will depend on the nature of the amendments. The House had ample opportunity of submitting amendments.
Do I take it that there will not be a Report Stage — that we are dealing with the Report Stage now, with the Bill recommitted?
The Bill is being recommitted now for the purpose of the amendments, and the Report Stage proper will be taken on another day.
Do I take it then that it will be in order to move the amendments which you ruled were proper to move on the Report Stage?
Yes, if the Chair rules them in order.
I would not think of moving any other amendments.
Such action would not be unprecedented, but I do not refer to the Deputy in that connection.
I take it then that this is the second Committee Stage?
Yes, but only for the amendments. The sections will not be put to the House.
I move amendments Nos. 2 and 3:—
2. In page 3, Section 2, immediately after line 43, to insert the words —
the expression "representative of employers" means such association or all such associations of employers as are, in the opinion of the Minister, representative of the employers in relation to whom the expression is used or, where in the opinion of the Minister there is no such association, persons who are, in the opinion of the Minister, representative of such employers.
3. In page 3, Section 2, immediately before line 44, to insert the words —
the expression "representative of workers" means such association or all such associations of workers as are, in the opinion of the Minister, representative of the workers in relation to whom the expression is used or, where in the opinion of the Minister there is no such association, persons who are, in the opinion of the Minister, representative of such workers.
In various sections of the Bill as drafted it was provided that the Minister should do certain things after consultation with the persons who are, in his opinion, representative of employers interested or persons who are, in his opinion, representative of workers interested. Representations were made to me, both on behalf of the employers' interests and workers' interests, that that provision should be extended to put upon the Minister an obligation of consulting with organisations of employers or of workers, where such organisations exist, and those amendments are being moved for that purpose. They define who constitute representatives of employers, and similarly the persons or organisations who constitute representatives of workers. The adoption of these amendments involves a number of consequential amendments throughout the Bill where the original provisions occur. The effect of the change required is that where such consultation must take place it shall be with associations of employers or of workers interested in the matters concerned, where such associations exist, and only with persons deemed by the Minister to be representatives of those interests where no association exists.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.
The following amendments appeared on the Order Paper:
4. In page 3, Section 2, to delete lines 44 to 48.—(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtala).
5. In page 3, line 45, Section 2, to delete all words after the word "days," line 45, down to and including the word "Day" where it last occurs in line 46, and substitute the words "New Year's Day; January 6th; St. Patrick's Day; Ascension Thursday; Corpus Christi; Feast of SS. Peter and Paul; August 15th; November 1st; December 8th and Christmas Day". — (Tadhg J. Murphy).
18. In page 5, before Section 5, to insert a new section as follows: —
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the following days and no other days shall be public holidays within the meaning and for the purposes of this Act, that is to say: —
(a) Christmas Day, and
(b) St. Patrick's Day when it falls on a weekday or, when it falls on a Sunday, the next following Monday, and
(c) Easter Monday, Whit Monday, the first Monday in August, and also (if it falls on a weekday) St. Stephen's Day.
(2) Whenever in any year a day is appointed under the Public Holidays Act, 1924 (No. 56 of 1924), to be a bank holiday instead of a day mentioned in the next preceding sub-section of this section, the day so appointed shall in that year be deemed to be substituted in the said next preceding sub-section for the day so mentioned and that sub-section shall be construed and have effect accordingly.
(3) Any employer may, on giving not less than one month's previous notice to all persons in his employment, substitute in any year any of the following days for any of the days mentioned or deemed to be mentioned in paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of this section, that is to say:—
(a) the 1st day of January,
(b) the 6th day of January,
(c) Ascension Thursday,
(d) the Feast of Corpus Christi,
(e) the 29th day of June,
(f) the 15th day of August,
(g) the 1st day of November,
(h) the 8th day of December.
(4) The following provisions shall have effect for the purpose of the next preceding sub-section of this section, that is to say:—
(a) the notice mentioned in the said sub-section shall be in writing and may be given to any person by handing a copy thereof to him personally or by posting a copy thereof in a conspicuous position in the place in which such person is employed;
(b) no day mentioned in the said sub-section shall be substituted under that sub-section in a year in which such day falls on a Sunday;
(c) when a day mentioned in the said sub-section is substituted under that sub-section by an employer in respect of any year, the day so substituted shall, in that year and in respect of all persons employed by such employer, be a public holiday within the meaning and for the purposes of this Act instead of the day for which it is so substituted.—(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtala).
These amendments might be discussed together. The Bill as originally drafted provided that workers in industrial undertakings should be allowed public holidays, and the public holidays named in the Bill are those six statutory holidays at present in force. It was, however, represented that in many parts of the country it was the practice of industrial undertakings to observe not the public statutory holidays but Church holidays, and it was suggested that the provisions in the Bill should be altered so as to enable Church holidays to be observed in lieu of statutory holidays, wherever it was considered advisable or desirable to do so. The effect of the amendments I am moving, numbers 4 and 18, is to provide that such substitution can take place, but without increasing the number of holidays. There are, I think, ten Church holidays in the year, and only six statutory holidays. The effect of amendment 18 is to provide that where an employer so chooses, and gives the requisite notice provided in the amendment, he can substitute for Easter Monday, or Whit Monday or the first Monday in August any of the Church holidays which are set out in sub-section (3) of the proposed new section.
Deputy Murphy proposes to substitute for the six public holidays the ten Church holidays. The effect of that amendment would be to make the observance of Church holidays compulsory in all areas, whether at present observed or not, as well as to increase the number of holidays that would be provided. I do not think that is desirable. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the owner of an industrial undertaking agreeing with his workers to observe all the Church holidays, if he so wishes. The minimum obligations which the Bill imposes on an employer is to provide six public holidays in the year, with power to select in respect of four of them, whether he will observe the statutory holidays or the nearest convenient Church holidays. I do not think it is desirable that we should impose statutory obligation in excess of that.
It is desirable that I should again remind the Dáil, as I did on the Committee Stage, that the obligations imposed by this Bill are minimum obligations and not intended to restrict any employer from conceding to his workers better conditions of employment than the Bill lays down. So far as we are concerned, it is our aim to secure six public holidays, apart from the annual holidays that will be given in industrial undertakings. The only question arising now is whether these should be the six statutory public holidays or whether discretion should be given to substitute Church holidays for them. The purpose of my amendment is to enable substitution to take place at the discretion of the employer, after notice has been given to the workers.
The Minister stated that certain provisions in the Bill are intended to be the minimum provisions. It is right to say that, to a very large extent, they will be the maximum provisions, because in many areas there will be very little opportunity of getting any extension of them, and by quite a good number of employers they will be regarded — even though the Minister describes them as minimum provisions — as very revolutionary provisions. I approach this matter from a different point of view. I think it does not need any very strong argument to make the Church holidays public holidays. Many of the local authorities observe this principle already, as they arrange that meetings are not held, and that the staffs are relieved from work on Church holidays. Recently in Cork the country council extended the principle to workers employed on the roads. I see no reason to depart from the view enshrined in my amendment, and given expression to by me at another stage. In this country there should be no question about holidays being a matter of choice. I see nothing in what the Minister said to enable me to depart from my proposal.
I should mention that the present statutory obligation is only to provide three holidays while the proposal in the Bill increases these to six. If it is the practice of employers in any area to allow all the Church holidays to be observed as holidays by their workers, I presume that practice will continue. They are doing so at present without being under any statutory obligation, and I presume they will not change in consequence of the passage of this Bill. The proposal is to substitute for the present practice a statutory obligation and I do not think that is desirable. If employers adopted the other practice, with the present statutory obligation only to provide three holidays, I do not think they are likely to depart from that when there is a special obligation providing six public holidays.
Mr. Murphy
Certain extraordinary anomalies arise in some districts in regard to Church holidays. I know numbers of cases where men who are not working on bank holidays get no pay, while the same men are compelled to work on Church holidays, when a great many other workers in the same neighbourhood are free. In country districts work is automatically suspended on Church holidays. It seems an extraordinary thing, in a country where 99 per cent. of the people are of one faith, to see one set of workers compelled to work on Church holidays, and very often scarcely getting time to attend Mass, while on other days, when their faith imposes no obligations on them, they are not at work and are not paid. I think if we are to select holidays we should select holidays that are prescribed by the Church.
I am in agreement, to a great extent, with Deputy Murphy in this matter. Being a Catholic, I am compelled to observe certain holidays called holidays of obligation and I am obliged to abstain from all sorts of work. Being a good Catholic and having a good deal of business activities at one time, I closed certain parts of my business on holidays of obligation and I thought I could get others to do so, but I failed. As a result I had to open my shops again on Church holidays. I was anxious to give my men a holiday, and to pay them. We cannot ignore the fact that we are a Catholic country, and we ought to keep in step with the Catholic religion, and instead of keeping pagan holidays like Easter Monday, Whit Monday, and other days which were imposed upon us by Imperialists and anti-Irish institutions and which the Minister referred to as statutory holidays, we should keep the Church holidays. The statutory obligations in this respect are altogether Protestant, pagan and English. If we are to have regard for holidays, we should have regard for the holidays that are obligatory in a Catholic country.
After all the wonderful expressions of piety that we have heard I am intervening now, as I am rather anxious that this Bill should pass. The Minister has gone a great length to meet the wishes of many workers, by establishing one week's holidays in the year. That must be considered a big step in advance. We all know that in many industries a week's, and in many cases a fortnight's, holidays with pay are given. I am rather concerned to know in how many cases is pay given, whether on Church holidays or on bank holidays. We can all be very pious, but I can give one instance where piety failed, as far as wages were concerned. In the Ford Factory in Cork an attempt was made on one occasion to get Church holidays recognised. Mr. Henry Ford said, "All right, you can have the Church holidays and the bank holidays if you like, but you are going to get no pay." I think the acid test of a man's piety is to go in sack cloth and ashes and if he takes Church holidays let him pay for them. Let us be honest and frank about this. It is all right to tell certain people that they should get the Church holidays, in addition to the holidays provided in the Bill, but remember that the holidays provided in the Bill were never given before, and never got statutory sanction.
I congratulate the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the effort. I believe it will be welcomed by the working classes in this country generally. I do not see the object of suggesting that additional holidays should be given. I should like to know how many of these people got holidays which are not statutory holidays as we have known them up to the present and who have, in addition, got the Church holidays. I certainly would be intrigued to learn the names of any employers who have been so pious as to give their employees the bank holidays and the Church holidays in addition. I feel that Deputy Murphy, having heard the Minister's explanation, might agree that this Bill has already made many steps towards satisfying the demand of country workers, in addition to town workers, for a week's holidays which they have never got before by statute, or for which they had not any statutory authority. As the Minister said, it is an initial effort, and when this Bill gets a chance of working and we learn by experience what the results of it will be, it will then be time to introduce the amendment suggested by Deputy Murphy and others.
I am sure Deputy O'Neill did not mean to be offensive, but I must take exception, as one of the unfortunate minority, to the coupling of Protestant, pagan and English. It was very unfortunate.
I should like to call the attention of the Minister to the effect of his amendment. The Bill provides that the expression "public holidays" means certain days which are defined in sub-section (1) of the amendment. The Minister goes on then in sub-section (3) of the amendment to say:
Any employer may, on giving not less than one month's previous notice to all persons in his employment, substitute in any year any of the following days for any of the days mentioned or deemed to be mentioned in paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of this section, that is to say —
and then eight Church holidays are set out. I should like to call the attention of the Minister to what is likely to happen under a section of that kind. In the first place, the employer is the person who is going to regulate the bank holidays of the workers in future. The worker at present knows, at all events, that so far as the first Monday in August, Easter Monday, Whit Monday and St. Stephen's Day are concerned, they are public holidays at present.
There is no obligation to cease work.
There is no obligation to cease work, but there is, in fact, as the Minister knows, a very long tradition about ceasing work on those days.
When did the Minister see a bricklayer in his own constituency working on the first Monday in August — in what year?
I have not gone around my own constituency on the first Monday in August looking for bricklayers working, but in the constituencies I have been in on bank holidays I have seen bricklayers working.
Now we are getting to the seriousness of the position. It is coming to the point under this amendment that the building employer is going to say, "I am not going to cease work on the first Monday in August; instead I am going to cease work on the 1st November, or I am going to cease work on the 1st January." All the building operatives are going to be working on the first Monday in August, which is usually a period of the year when recreation is enjoyed by building workers and all kinds of workers. Now they are going to have substituted for that a day at some other period of the year, and all this is going to be done at the sole instigation of the employer. The worker is not going to have any opportunity of expressing his views on the matter. All the employer has to do is give one month's notice and the change automatically takes effect.
Let us take what is likely to happen in laundries. There is always keen competition amongst laundries as to what firms can supply laundry round about the first Monday in August, particularly in this city where there is a big influx of visitors. The laundry that closes on the first Monday in August is at a disadvantage therefore compared with the laundry that can open on that day. What is possible under this section as drafted by the Minister is that a laundry can announce that it has substituted, let us say, New Year's Day for the first Monday in August, and immediately its workers will be required to work on the first Monday in August and will be off on New Year's Day. The laundry that organises its scheme of work in that way will have a very unfair advantage over the other laundries and the workers will be required to accept a day off on the 1st January instead of on the first Monday in August. I do not think that it is a sensible arrangement and I do not think it is an equitable arrangement from the point of view of the workers.
In any case, I do not think that the employer ought to be allowed, of his own volition to decide what are the bank holidays which the workers are entitled to enjoy under the Bill. I would vote for an amendment giving the workers the bank holidays and the Church holiday — the bank holiday as we know them at present and the Church holidays as defined in the section, but under the Minister's amendment it is well known that the bank holidays are going to be abolished. That is going to have a serious effect in large industrial centres where the bank holidays are in fact observed by workers and employers who do not observe Church holidays, notwithstanding their particular religious faith.
I suggest to the Minister that he should not allow employers to vary the public holidays unilaterally and that he should insist that the employers and workers will be required to join together either in petitioning him or mutually accepting an arrangement to vary the bank holidays and the Church holidays, or that at all events the Minister should hold the power in the last resort to say: "I will decide whether the representations made to me in respect of this substitution of a Church holiday for a bank holiday are such as to justify me in giving permission of that kind."
This section is an unfair section as it stands. It is only fair to the employer. The whole purpose of this amendment is not to deal with the question on any territorial basis, or on any craft or class basis. It is possible under the amendment for one employer in the City of Dublin to say: "My business is going to remain open on the first Monday in August." All the other employers in that industry might be prepared to close their business on the first Monday in August, but a single employer is able to opt out under the amendment and thereby inflict hardship on his competitors in the same trade. It is possible for him to say: "Instead of the first Monday in August I will give you Ascension Thursday, or New Year's Day, or the 8th December, or the 1st November." Employer No. 2 might come along and pick an entirely different Church holiday, and employers three and four may do the same.
I think you will produce considerable chaos under an arrangement of that kind. The fair and obvious thing, if there is going to be a close-down, is to have a close-down on a territorial basis or a craft basis or a class basis. Giving each individual employer the right to opt out in order to inflict possible injury on his competitors and possible hardship on the workers is an arrangement which I do not think the Minister should insist on in this amendment. I ask him to look into the matter further in order to make sure that the employer is not the person solely entitled to move for the substitution; that he should be required to get agreement from the representative of the workers; or, if the Minister is not prepared to say that, at all events that, in the last resort, the Minister should take the power to decide the matter.
While Deputy Norton was speaking I thought that it might meet the point if the words "by agreement with his employees or their representatives" were inserted after the words "any employer." It would then read: "Any employer, by agreement with his employees or their representatives, may, on giving not less than one month's previous notice to all persons," etc. Would the Minister look into the matter with a view to inserting those words or any other words he might suggest himself to meet the situation in a better way. I think it would meet the point raised now by Deputy Norton with which, by the way, I am a good deal in agreement, and it might avoid a good deal of conflict if the Minister inserted those words. With regard to the question of territorial basis, I think we would require to define the territory.
There is no basis at all in this amendment.
It would have to be defined. The territorial basis might mean anything because the county and the county adjoining might be extended from Dublin to Cork. In view of Deputy Norton's remarks, I would suggest to the Minister that he should insert certain words after the words "any employer" in sub-section (3) of his own amendment — the representatives of the employees might be the trade union body for the operatives concerned in the various industries. Of course, craftsmen would be represented as well as the other industrial workers. I think that the Minister might look into it.
I do not think Deputy Norton has raised any point that needs to be met. So far as I can follow his remarks, he apparently believes that employers who at the present time are observing public holidays under no statutory obligations to do so are going to cease to do so when the possibility of substituting other holidays for these is given to them after a statutory obligation to give six holidays is imposed on them. Deputy Norton talks about laundries at the present time in Dublin observing the 1st August as a holiday.
I did not say the 1st August.
Well, the only holiday the Deputy mentioned was the 1st August.
I did not say the 1st August. There is no holiday on the 1st August. I said the first Monday in August.
Very well, the first Monday. But, in order to get some trade advantage, it is suggested that, when this amendment is passed, they will substitute some other holiday for the first Monday in August. There is no obligation on them at the present time to observe the first Monday in August as a public holiday, nor is there anything to prevent a laundry employer or any other type of employer opening his factory and requiring his workers to work. At the present time, there is an obligation in connection with three public holidays only and, in respect of two of them, the employer has the choice as to which he will observe. Neither is there anything in this Bill which requires any worker to work on these holidays. I do not think it is necessary to get an agreement as to the holidays to be observed. A wise employer, no doubt, will do that, but if there are overriding considerations against having a holiday on a particular day, it is obvious that it must rest with the employer, provided that the obligation to give six holidays with pay is fulfilled. I could not follow the point of Deputy O'Neill's remarks either. The six holidays now existing are public holidays in consequence of the Public Holidays Act of 1924, and, bad as that Act was, I do not think it could be described as pagan or by any of the other terms that Deputy O'Neill used. That Act created these public holidays and that Act can be amended. If the Dáil now, or any other Dáil, wants to substitute other holidays for these, it can do so, but I do not think it should be done by an amendment to this Bill. I think it should be done by an amendment to the Public Holidays Act and then, if that Act is amended, to provide here that the days substituted will become the days on which the obligation to cease work operates in consequence of this Bill.
The only question that arose at all was the fact that representations were made from certain areas to the effect that these existing public holidays were not ordinarily observed in certain trades and in certain districts and that it was desired, in the interests of the workers, to substitute for some of these public holidays convenient Church holidays instead. It was decided, on these representations, to give that power of substitution in respect of four of the holidays, and that is all that is being done. No employer is going to substitute one holiday for another unless it is obviously necessary either in the interests of his business or for the convenience of his workers, and the main consideration there arising is the practice in the locality. It is the practice in the locality that is going to determine the choice of holidays wherever that choice is exercised. If no choice is exercised, then the six holidays provided for in the Public Holidays Act must be observed. I think it would be a big mistake to attempt, by an amendment of this Bill, to change the existing public holidays and substitute a larger number of other dates for those at present prescribed as public holidays by the Statute of 1924.
Perhaps I may be permitted to ask the Minister a question. Would the Minister agree that an obligation is imposed on the employer now to recognise with pay six statutory holidays in respect of his workers?
And still the Minister can see nothing in the point that is made? If so, it is because he does not want to see the point that is made. This Bill proposes to put on the employer a statutory obligation to pay for six public holidays, and my point is that this is an amendment allowing the employer to change the public holidays. The Minister pays considerable obeisance now to the provisions of the Act of 1924 and says that it provided for certain public holidays, but he is going to allow every employer in the country, without regard to the requirements of his own workers or their convenience, to select what are to be the public holidays, because he is going to see that, while the Act imposes upon me the obligation of recognising certain public holidays defined by sub-section (1) of the amendment, it gives me power also to change those. I object to the employer being allowed to change these holidays unilaterally. The Minister wants to maintain the present public holidays, and yet he is going to allow employers, on their own, to change these public holidays and recognise his obligations, not in respect of the six holidays in sub-section (1), but in respect of four other particular days. I think that the employer ought not to be allowed to do that in the way the Minister proposes. As far as Deputy Murphy's amendment is concerned, I think it is immensely preferable to the provision the Minister is making here, which might as well have been drawn up by an employer. In fact, I do not think it would have got the support of any employer who wants some kind of order and regulation in his business.
There is nothing here to prevent him regulating the holidays in agreement with anything he likes, or giving as many as he likes.
But is there anything requiring him to consult with anybody?
So that he can do it just on his own — consult nobody. This is one of the few sections in the Bill where there is not some consultation laid down to take place between the employer and the employees. Why should there not be some consultation in this case?
The Deputy does not show that it is necessary to provide a statutory obligation to consult.
Does the Minister think it is necessary to give the workers any voice in the matter?
Certainly. I am not preventing the workers from being consulted.
That is the worst case I have ever seen put up here. This is an Act of Parliament and the Minister could say in the Bill that there should be consultation. He could insert in the Bill these words :—"Any employer can in consultation with his workers" do so and so. The Minister will not give the workers an opportunity of having a voice in this matter in consultation with the employers. Then the Minister could be the final arbiter. Instead of that the Minister is going to give the employers a statutory opportunity of changing the six bank holidays in the Bill as it stands, to six other holidays. Every employer who wants to get over a deal with a rival knows the value of this section. The Minister is asked to do one thing, namely, to let the men who run the business for 365 days of the year have some voice in the bank holidays. He will not let the workers appeal to the Minister himself.
Where is that in the section?
Where is the contrary in the section?
Will the Deputy tell me where that is stated in the section — where does the section say that the employee is to have no voice?
This is the Minister's Bill and he ought to know.
I know what is in the Bill so well that I know that is not in the Bill.
The Minister refuses to allow the men to have any voice in the matter of holidays.
The Deputy knows that at present the workers are getting these statutory holidays and there is no obligation on the employers to give them.
Are they paying the men for the holidays?
Does the State pay its men for their holidays?
The Deputy is obviously trying to avoid understanding what I am telling the House. There is power in the Bill to make changes in the holidays. In this Bill a new obligation is imposed upon the employers. There is nothing whatever in the Bill that prevents the workers or the representatives of the workers discussing with the employers or with anyone else changes in the public holidays. But I say the final word must be with the people who run the business, having regard to the fact that these public holidays have to be paid for.
The Minister says that I am obviously trying to avoid understanding the Bill. I could not do that half as successfully as the Minister is doing it. The Minister has adopted the attitude of being impervious to understanding the Bill. He says there is nothing in this Bill to prevent the workers coming along and agreeing with the employers. There is nothing preventing their coming along and saying they agree to everything in this Bill. Many of the rights that have been won for the workers have been won for them by instruments entirely different from this Bill and many of the rights that will be won for the workers will be won for them by instruments entirely different from this Bill. But this Bill tries to ensure, where the employer is not prepared to move in accordance with modern standards, that the State will impose these standards upon him. As the Bill stands one individual employer who wants to break down well-known bank holidays, can substitute for them holidays which are probably not of any benefit to the workers. We say that the employer should not be allowed to do that purely on his own responsibility. He ought, at all events, be required to go into consultation with the representatives of the workers on the matter. The employer should be required to get agreement with his workers before he can substitute some other days for these well-known holidays. The Minister does not want to be troubled on the matter and he does not want to trouble the employer. He does not want to put on the employer any responsibility of consulting his workers. The Minister, in fact, says to the employer: "All you have got to do is to give a month's notice at least," and he can substitute any of the eight days mentioned in sub-section (3) of amendment No. 18 for any of the well-known public holidays — Easter Monday, Whit Monday, the first Monday in August and St. Stephen's Day. All I am asking the Minister to do is to say that the workers ought to have some say in a proposal of that kind. It is a one-sided proposal. It gives the employer discretion to do what he likes within the ambit of sub-section (3) of this amendment and the Minister will not listen to an appeal on behalf of the workers to have some voice in determining what the arrangements are to be in connection with these holidays.
I find myself in agreement with Deputy Norton in the case he has made against giving the employer power to substitute any of the days mentioned in sub-section (3) of the amendment for the public holidays. This is something that should not be tolerated by the House, because as Deputies are aware there will be a class of employer who will say that there is some advantage in working his men on these bank holidays. Such a man would score over his rivals in trade, if permitted to make this substitution. The Minister says there is at present no obligation on the employer to give Easter Monday, Whit Monday or the first Monday in August, days which have been recognised all over the country. In actual practice it would not be good for some of the employers to try to change other days for these days. Now the employer is permitted by a clause of this Bill to make this substitution and to ask his employees to take another day instead of Easter Monday, Whit Monday or the first Monday in August. If that is permitted it will prevent many employees from going on these days with their friends for a holiday. The Minister in permitting this is breaking up a whole family circle. You have such a thing as members of a club going on a holiday together. It will be found that certain employees cannot go on holiday if this substitution is permitted. They cannot go together on outings that may be arranged. I am in full agreement with the protest made that no employer should be permitted to substitute other days for the six days named in the Bill. I would appeal to the Minister not to be so steadfast. I ask him to consider the suggestions made by Deputy Anthony and Deputy Norton.
I am more confused than enlightened by the speech made by Deputy Byrne. Deputy Byrne says he is supporting Deputy Norton and Deputy Norton is supporting Deputy Murphy, who asks that the very same days with the addition of St. Patrick's Day and Christmas Day be substituted for the six public holidays. But apparently Deputy Byrne's suggestion is that the present set of holidays be left undisturbed. The Bill is providing for six statutory holidays only. It is to observe these holidays and no other days and to prevent employers from employing their workers on these days. But it was in consequence of representations made in this House when the Committee Stage was going through as well as representations made outside, that it was considered desirable to introduce an amendment giving power to substitute four Church holidays for four of these holidays which are not of themselves Church holidays. I am quite certain that the power given is going to be exercised in accordance with the practice in each locality. If it is the practice in a locality to observe existing bank holidays they will be observed and if it is the practice to observe Church holidays they will be observed. It is desirable that the power of substitution will be there so that it will be possible in each locality for the existing holidays that are observed to be observed.
What is the objection to giving the workers a voice in the matter?
I am not denying the workers a voice but I do not think it is necessary or desirable that there should be statutory obligations on employers to come to agreement with the workers. I have expressed my opinion that the wise employer will undoubtedly consult the convenience of his workers.
There should be a statutory obligation imposing upon the employer the making of a decision. The position should not be making the decision conditional on getting the agreement of his workers.
Is the Minister prepared to insert words providing for consultation, and that, failing agreement between both sides, then the decision of the Minister should be binding?
I think the solution that the Minister is offering will eliminate the difficulty that certainly has occurred in the trade that I am associated with. Our experience has been that it is custom that determines the observance of holidays in various districts throughout the country. Down through the country, for instance, it is the Church holidays that are observed. The reason for that is that the people in the country will not work on Church holidays. We have carried out work down in Kerry. We necessarily had to bring down Dublin men, skilled men, on the job. The Dublin men would desire to work on Church holidays, but the local men would not. In the case of bank holidays, the local men would want to work, but the Dublin men would not. I think that what the Minister is proposing will provide a solution for that difficulty. In future, when we are doing a job in the country, we can make provision that the Church holidays are to be observed. In Dublin provision can be made for the observance of the bank holidays. In Dublin, as long as I can remember, it has been the custom for workmen not to work on bank holidays. They do work on Church holidays. I think that the Minister's solution will get over all this difficulty and that it will avoid friction. I think very few employers want to dictate to their employees on the question of holidays. They want to see the machinery relating to holidays working on proper lines, and to observe the holidays that fit in best with local traditions. If they tried to impose other holidays on the workers then a difficulty would be likely to arise.
I think we may assume that the Bill recognises six statutory holidays for which workers not engaged in work are to be paid. I am in this difficulty, that I come from a part of the country in which all the Catholic holidays mentioned in Deputy Murphy's amendment are observed. At the moment, of course, in a great many cases, payment is not made to the workers in respect of those days.
I think the Deputy might say in most cases.
Yes. The position at any rate is that in the County Wexford there is no work done on Catholic holidays. The workers in the county do work on Easter Monday, Whit Monday, the first Monday of August and on some of the other days mentioned. My difficulty is that I do not want holidays created by an English institution, if you like, substituted for Catholic holidays. I think it would be much better if some arrangement could be made whereby workers employed in districts where the Catholic holidays are observed all the year round were paid for those holidays rather than make it a statutory obligation to have the other holidays observed. I think that the Bill as originally introduced was far better than it would be by the insertion of the Minister's amendment, and for that reason I will be compelled to vote against it. As far as I am concerned I prefer Deputy Murphy's amendment. I would prefer to have the Bill as it was originally rather than have it with the Minister's amendment.
I am prepared to accept the decision of the Dáil on this matter. Let the amendment be put, and if the Dáil so decides then it can have the Bill as originally introduced.
There is just one point that I want to make, and I think it is not unreasonable in view of the attitude of the Minister. It is this: that there ought to be reasonable support for the suggestion to insert words which would provide for consultation between employers and the representatives of the employees, and that failing agreement — I do not foresee disagreement in all cases — the Minister should take power, by the insertion of suitable words in the Bill, to decide in cases where there is failure to agree.
The Deputy knows well the reason why Church holidays have been observed in a number of districts. The reason is because workers will not work on those days. Is not that so? That is the only reason why those holidays have been observed. That has been the practice in those districts, and that practice is not going to be changed when this Bill becomes law. Where it has been the practice to cease work on Church holidays, that practice will continue to operate, but the obligation to pay the workers will only operate in respect of six of those Church holidays.
It seems to me that in the City of Dublin, where the Church holidays are not observed, it will be possible for employers under this section to substitute the Church holidays for the bank holidays without the consent of the workers.
Undoubtedly. I would impress this point on the Deputy, that at the present time the practice which exists in Dublin in respect of public holidays is not imposed by any statute.
But the Minister is imposing it now.
I am imposing no obligation on an employer to do more than provide six statutory holidays.
And the Minister is naming them.
I am naming six statutory holidays. If, at the present time, without any statutory obligation at all, the practice is to give certain holidays, why do you assume, if provision is made for six statutory holidays, that that practice is going to change?
A change from what had been the practice would mean fighting against a tradition. The position will be different under this section.
At the present time an employer need not give any holidays except three. Now, because a statutory obligation is being imposed on employers to give six, Deputies are assuming that employers are immediately going to stop a practice that heretofore they had voluntarily adopted.
The position will be quite different if the Minister's amendment is adopted. There was a recognised custom with regard to holidays in the past, and it would be an unpopular thing for a man in trade if he attempted to depart from what had been the custom. Under the section provision is made for six statutory holidays, but a discretion is given to employers to swing over to days other than those which were heretofore observed as public holidays. Under the section an employer can now give notice to his employees and say that in future they will have to work on the August bank holiday. A man may do that for trade reasons and to gain an advantage over trade rivals.
If there is some wonderful amount of trade to be got by doing that, why do employers not do it now?
One reason is that under trade agreements if men are required to work on bank holidays they have to be paid time and a half or double time.
Whatever obligations there are with regard to the payment of time and a half or double time, in cases such as the Deputy refers to, still persist and are not upset by this.
Deputy Norton has mentioned the case of laundry workers. Deputy Byrne, I think, put his finger on the spot when he spoke about trade agreements. Deputy Norton spoke about Dublin. There is no doubt that in Dublin employment in laundries and other places is governed by agreements in which bank holidays are specified. Therefore, in the case of Dublin there can be no extraordinary swing-over, because an employer who attempted it would be immediately held up under the trade agreements to which he was a party.
If we are going to consider what Deputy Norton and some other Deputies seem to ask for, namely, that a month before the bank holiday an employer may give notice as to a change, I do not think that will satisfy anybody because it will leave a certain number of employees able to argue with the employers that they want a different day substituted. Possibly they may be only 5 per cent. of the employees, but they will leave the question over for decision up to the very last moment. It seems to me that if there is anything the workers want to know, they will try to ascertain it a long time in advance of the holidays. My opinion is that if there is any overwhelming demand for substituting certain days, they will be changed under the wages agreements. That I believe will be the best way to settle the matter because it will be an arrangement come to between employers and employees. I do not think that at the present time there is the slightest chance of any worker agreeing to having the first Monday in January, when there will be probably snow on the ground, substituted for the first Monday in August.
It is possible under the Section.
He can do it under the Bill when this amendment is passed but certainly that is not going to make for the case and contentment of the worker who is regulating his holidays 12 months ahead. I suggest to the Minister that whatever is done, the holidays should be known definitely a long way ahead.
I should like to know what demand has come from organised workers in regard to the substitution of Church holidays for bank holidays. I want to know whether any Trades Council in Cork, Limerick or Dublin has passed a resolution calling for these holidays in lieu of the ordinary bank holidays. I know of none. I know of several industries in which the workers get a fortnight's holiday with pay and we all know that possibly an extra week or two in the year would be relished by everybody in employment. I made a suggestion to the Minister a moment ago and I should like him to consider it. I think it would be acting contrary to the principle of the whole Bill to vote against his amendment, but I should like to ask him to reconsider it, in view of what has been stated by Deputy Norton on the one hand and Deputy Dockrell on the other. If there is to be any substitution of these holidays, I should like to see the matter put to a vote of the persons concerned and I am quite optimistic as to what the result will be. As far as Church holidays are concerned, I know that ordinary working class people are prepared to take any holiday provided they are paid for it, but I would ask what body has stated that the workers are prepared to work on bank holidays and take Church holidays in lieu of them? It is quite evident that with the exception of a few Confraternities and people like that we do not hear a word about that. Will Deputy Davin deny that?
Of course Wexford is an ultra-religious centre.
It is a question of the holidays that are observed there.
How many trade or labour bodies put forward a demand for such a change?
I am stating that 3,000 or 4,000 employees of the Cork County Council get Church holidays and they get the bank holidays in addition.
But do they get paid for them?
Mr. Murphy
They get the Church holidays. It shows how far Deputy Anthony is out of touch with conditions when he does not know that.
We would all take five or six additional holidays in the year, bank holidays or Church holidays, if we were paid for them. Remember that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot have their bread buttered on both sides. I speak on behalf of thousands of workmen who are honest enough to say that this Bill is a good Bill. It is giving statutory sanction to something that hitherto depended on the volition of the employer. I consider it is a confession of weakness on the part of the Labour Party to suggest that the trade unions are not strong enough to insist on employers in the various industries coming into conference with them in regard to the substitution of holidays. I do know that there are trade unions in this country, even if this amendment passes, the members of which will approach their employer and get into conference with him on this question of substituting Church holidays for bank holidays. It is a confession of weakness to suggest that the trade unions are not strong enough to insist upon employers conferring with them to consider the whole matter.
In so far as Deputy Anthony's speech is concerned, he has only given expression to his personal views, which are not the views of a great many members of this Party. Deputy Anthony states that bank holidays are observed all over the country, whereas we know that bank holidays are only observed in the larger centres of population. It is not a question of substitution. Bank holidays are unknown in the greater part of the country and all we want to secure under the section is that when the statutory holidays are being fixed they will be the holidays as observed by the Church. I think that would refer to the greater part of the country.
I should like to make an appeal to the Minister, and if he takes note of Deputy Anthony's speech it should have more effect on him than anything said before. Deputy Anthony has envisaged a conflict on this matter as between employers and employees. I think it rather strange to suggest that there should be a test of strength between employers and employees to fight out an issue that should be settled here and now. We do not want to get into conflict with employers over a trivial matter of this kind that can be easily settled by the Minister by bringing responsible representatives of the employers and employees together. Why be so adamant on this matter? I quite agree that if there is any attempt to change the holidays observed for some years the workers will resent it. The workers may have an excursion arranged for a certain period beforehand, as Deputy Byrne stated, and if the employer without consultation with them makes a change in the holiday it will be very properly resented by them. We want to take precautions now to ensure that nothing of that kind can happen, and that is the reason we suggest that there should be consultation with the representatives of the employees and employers when a change is to take place.
The provisions in the Bill relating to holidays are of a different character. They impose on the Minister an obligation to consult with the representatives of the parties before he makes regulations of general application. In this case, we are allowing individuals to exercise a certain discretion provided they observe the six days holidays.
Would there not be a fluctuation each year then?
That will not take place in every case. It is a different thing to say that this change can only be effected between an individual employer and his individual workers, in which case you will have to provide for some means of finding out the opinions of the workers. It might be by a majority vote or something of that kind. On the other hand, there might be a difference of opinion amongst the workers. The suggestion is that the Minister, before making general regulations, must have certain consultations. It would be a mistake to provide for the exercise of this power only when agreement had been reached. I think it is much better to say that the change can be made at the discretion of the employer. I think we can rely on this as a certainty, that no such change will be made except in accordance with the general practice of the locality. If there is any attempt made to use the power unreasonably, then the same methods that have secured the recognition of public holidays when there was no statutory obligation to provide them will operate to check any such abuse.
Perhaps I might be permitted to suggest how I think it would affect Dublin. I see now that we are discussing two sets of circumstances. Deputy Corish has put the case as coming from the country district and I have to put it as coming from the city. The circumstances that apply in Wexford do not apply in Dublin. Suppose you make Church holidays statutory holidays and give the employers all over the Saorstát an opportunity of substituting one of these for, say, the first Monday in August, what would be likely to happen? There is a well-known drapery firm in Dublin who advertise excursion parties from the country to the City. The drapery industry is controlled by a very powerful and great trade union, looking after the interests of its members. Under this measure are you not running the risk of one of these firms saying: "We will advertise an excursion from Wexford, bringing the people from there to Dublin and we will keep our shop open on one of the bank holidays"? That is what I am afraid of.
This Bill does not refer to shops.
Deputy Anthony suggests that the attitude adopted by the members of this Party is an admission of a certain weakness on the part of trade unions to enforce proper working conditions and holidays. I do not think there is now, and I do not think there is likely to be, any weakness on the part of unions that have existing agreements with industries. Does Deputy Anthony suggest that if there is room for differences of opinion he would prefer to see these questions settled by strikes rather than by the Minister in the simple way this Party is asking him to settle them? I admit there are at the moment, and there are bound to be, more cases where the workers now being employed in new industries are not automatically organised on the day the factories are opened. I think that there should be some form of consultation provided for and in the few cases where there is likely to be a failure to agree, the Minister would not be taking too much authority on himself if he had the right finally to decide, in cases of disagreement, what the day should be.
Suppose the workers cannot agree among themselves?
Is there not provision for that in the Bill?
I think the Minister was somewhat unfortunate in his original suggestion. He ought to have realised that there is a difference between the City and the country. One weakness in the Labour Party's proposal is the type of example they have put up. They suggested that a laundry owner might possibly decide to open on the first Monday in August. I would like to see a laundry owner doing that. What would he open on the first Monday in August for? Or, look at it from the other angle, why does he shut on the first Monday in August? Obviously, because his workers have practically nothing to do on that day. Laundry establishments usually get out all their goods on the Saturday before the bank holiday. If one were to examine the books of a laundry one would find that on no day has that laundry less stock belonging to customers than on the Saturday preceding the first Monday in August.
A case can be made in regard to the trouble about a consultation. Take the case of Dublin workers. The men from Dublin want to be off on the bank holiday, but country men may want to work on that day. There might be a ballot taken, but no matter which side wins, the Dublin man wants the day off and he will not work. The countryman wants to work, but there is no work for him to do because the tradesman is not there. Consultation in that case is out of the question. Similarly, with regard to a Church holiday, the Dublin worker has been accustomed to work on that day and he does not see why he should not do it still. The countryman will say: "Whether you do it or not, we will not turn up." In such circumstances consultation goes by the board. Is it likely that an employer will get any great advantage over any of his contemporaries by working on a bank holiday? I fail to see it.
In both amendments there are two days, Christmas Day and St. Patrick's Day, that are not in dispute, so that only four days remain in dispute. These will remain in dispute in such a case as was mentioned by Deputy Corish, where the tradition has been that the men will not work on that day. Some accommodation must be made in respect of them, and I would like to hear some example more convincing than that mentioned by Deputy Norton about the laundry. The Minister could have saved himself a good deal of bother in this case. I suggest, when he is ear-marking certain days which might be substituted for bank holidays, he should give these days their Catholic titles. For instance, the 1st January might be put in as the Feast of the Circumcision and the 6th might be put down as the Feast of the Epiphany. He does it in respect of Christmas Day and St. Patrick's Day, and I do not see why he should not follow the same rule in respect of the designation of those other days.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided — Tá: 79; Níl: 25.
Tá.
- Aiken, Frank.
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Clery, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Davis, Michael.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Desmond, William.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Finlay, John.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Everett, James.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Keating, John.
- Kent, William Rice.
- Keyes, Michael.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Pattison, James P.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Corish and Everett.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 4, Section 2, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the words "the word `premises' includes buildings of every description, and also includes land with no building thereon, whether such land is or is not used in connection with a building".
The word "premises" occurs in a section of the Bill and it also occurs in an amendment which I will move later. It was suggested during the discussion on Committee Stage that it was desirable to have a definition of the term in order to prevent misunderstanding. I am proposing to insert in the section a definition of the word "premises" to make it clear that it includes not merely buildings of every description, but also land with no building thereon whether such land is or is not used in connection with a building.
It may be anywhere work is carried out?
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 4, Section 3 (1), line 10, after the word "mining" to insert the words "nor the transport of persons or goods".
This amendment is intended to make clear that the transport of persons or goods is not covered by the Bill. I indicated already that there was considerable difficulty in dealing with the regulation of the conditions of employment of persons engaged in the transport of persons or goods in the same way as the conditions of persons in factory employment. Consequently, I informed the Dáil that transport was not covered by this Bill. There was a doubt as to whether that exclusion was complete and this amendment is inserted for the purpose of making clear that the exclusion of persons engaged in transport is complete.
How is it proposed to deal with those persons?
The regulation of the conditions of employment of persons engaged in that occupation will have to be done by methods different from those proposed in this Bill.
When is the regulation likely to take place?
Will the effect of the amendment be that the members of the transport section of an employment will not be entitled to all these benefits, holidays and so forth?
They will not be entitled to them under this Bill.
In the amendment which the Minister has proposed, it is sought to exclude from the Bill persons engaged in the "transport of persons or goods." The phrase "transport of goods" may have wider application than the transport of goods associated with the carrying of persons. In a certain form of industrial work which is within the scope of this Bill, there may be a motor-driver who is engaged in carrying the industrial goods so produced. The men engaged in manipulative or labouring work in the industry will come under the scope of the Bill. Is it definitely intended that the transport of goods of that kind should be excluded under the Bill because, up to the present, it was possible to argue that it was not excluded? On the Committee Stage of the Bill, even the Minister admitted that.
The intention of the amendment is to exclude them. In the matter of the regulation of their hours of work and so forth, a different method will have to be adopted than is proposed for workers in other kinds of employment.
Has the Minister given any consideration to the case, say, of a quarry? Certain workers may be engaged in quarrying operations, these operations bringing them within the scope of the Bill. Another person may be engaged in virtually the same kind of work — not in quarrying sand or stone but in removing it from one place to another, perhaps by means of a vehicle. The carriage of goods is, under this amendment, to be definitely excluded from the scope of the Bill, but it is possible to argue that persons engaged in the way I have described should come within the scope of the Bill.
It is intended to exclude them. There are obvious difficulties. You may say to a worker in a factory that he is not to work more than eight hours per day. At the end of eight hours he will stop work. A man who is driving a motor lorry or delivering goods cannot stop when the clock strikes the eighth hour. He has got to get his vehicle back to the garage or to get his goods delivered. He is subject to obligations which do not apply in the case of the other type of worker. In relation to such workers, the regulation of their hours of work and the improvement of their conditions will have to be done by a different method and in a different measure. We are excluding that class of work as we excluded mining. These workers will have to be dealt with in a different way.
The Minister ought to leave the Bill in such a way as not definitely to exclude everybody engaged in the carting or transport of goods, because some of that class of work may be so closely allied to industrial work that the person engaged in it may be able to argue that he comes within the scope of this Bill and that he should get the benefits conferred by it. I think it is better to leave the Bill somewhat vague on that point and let disputes be decided in the way that such disputes are usually decided. I think that the Minister is clarifying the section rather unfairly to people who might come within the scope of the Bill.
It is intended that they should be outside the scope of the Bill.
The House should bear in mind that it is highly undesirable to promote litigation. Therefore, in so far as we can, we ought to divide people into very clear-cut categories which will be easy of recognition. So far as I am aware, there is nothing in this Bill to prohibit people from working overtime. What the Bill does is to lay down that there shall be a normal working day and that any work beyond the time prescribed shall be statutory overtime. I agree with the Minister that while it is easy to fix hours for work in a factory or a quarry or elsewhere, it is not easy to do that in the case of a person who is carting, but would the Minister think of allowing the terms of the Bill to apply to persons who are carting in connection with industrial business of one kind or another and exclude such persons as are engaged in the transport of persons or goods within the meaning of the Road Transport Act, which defines persons who are licensed carriers of persons or goods? If the Minister would do that, he would divide the people into clear categories and leave no scope for litigation as to whether workers are factory workers within the meaning of the Act or transport workers within the meaning of this exclusion. Therefore I suggest to the Minister, if he wants to remove transport workers generally from the scope of the Bill what he ought to do is to remove from it any person working for a transport undertaking as defined under the present law and to let the Bill operate in the case of any transport worker who is for ordinary purposes a person affected by Section 3 of the Bill.
The difficulty is not as to persons employed in ordinary transport work; the difficulty is as to persons engaged in the transport of goods in factories and such places, such as ordinary workers and commercial employees who might drive a factory lorry. It is difficult to regulate their conditions of employment in the same manner as the conditions of those other workers employed in the factory. I say it is done in a different manner. Take people employed in bakeries. They have certain conditions of employment that can be regulated in the ordinary way. But a person employed delivering bread, as the driver of a bread van, is treated under different regulations and their conditions of employment must be in a different manner. I therefore propose to exclude the ordinary bakery worker for the purpose of not having them in a Bill that will cover transport workers only.
It is a difficulty about hours.
In my experience these could be checked out. A man is found to take out his cart in the morning say at 9 o'clock and his time for beginning work is that hour. He checks in in the afternoon when he has put his horse into the stable for the night; the man then checks out. I take it his hours would be ascertained by finding the difference between the hour at which he checked in and the hour at which he checked out. So far as he has exceeded the ordinary statutory working day he would then be entitled to overtime. I see no difficulty about that in administration. But I see an enormous difficulty for the Minister and for the employers if they have to differentiate whether a man is included in the kind of transport workers that the Minister proposes to provide for here or not. You might have a casual labourer working about the yard. There might be a light vehicle there for use for the delivery of light articles. Such a man might be told to put a pony between the shafts and deliver some consignment of goods. Would he come under the Bill?
That is provided for in the Bill. If he is an industrial worker for any part of the day he is treated as an industrial worker for the whole day.
Is the Minister satisfied that the words he is proposing in this legislation are sufficiently clear that they will not lead to litigation?
I am satisfied that the amendment makes matters so clear that they will not.
The Minister takes a man working in the forenoon who does transport work for a time in the afternoon and hopes that the law courts will hold with the amending words of the Bill that that individual is an industrial worker and is entitled to overtime.
There is Section 47 of the Bill which provides that if at any time of the day a man does industrial work then for the purposes of the Bill he is taken to be doing industrial work for the whole day.
If the Minister wants to exclude carters and persons engaged in the delivery of goods because of the difficulty of defining their hours, there is nothing to prevent him saying, in this Bill, that they are excluded, for the present at all events, from certain sections of the Bill. And he could quite easily say that a person engaged in the transport of goods is included, that their right to holidays is safeguarded and that their rights to wages for a maximum 48-hours week are preserved. The Minister could get that kind of control pending the more regular rules and regulations. But he should not dismiss the idea of getting control over that kind of work and transport so far as it is possible under this Bill.
I agree that what the Deputy suggests would be possible and would not be very difficult except that it is better to deal with transport in a separate measure, just the same as we are dealing with regular work. We touch part of the problem in this Bill. The whole field will have to be covered until there is a series of measures enacted. There is no reason why we should upset the general plan of industrial workers — manual, commercial or other workers.
They are all very closely allied.
A person deemed to be a commercial worker and not coming within the scope of this Bill might be deemed to be more closely akin as for instance in bakeries. Those employed in the industry are industrial workers. Then you have transport workers and then you have those engaged in the selling of the goods who are described as clerical workers, and who consequently are not included.
The Minister will agree that these distinctions may entail unfortunate circumstances to the owner of the business. It is embarrassing to any person engaged in business to have considerable Government regulations at all. We all know that under modern conditions a certain amount of Government regulations is necessary, but the less complex they are the better. Take the case of the bakeries. Those engaged in them will consist of two classes of workers generally — that is, the industrial workers who would be engaged in the process of baking, and the shop assistant who would be engaged in the commercial job of selling. The Minister is now introducing a third class, and we are going to have three separate statutes applying to the employer. The employer, if this Bill passes, in the Saorstát, who will have to co-operate with social legislation of this kind will have to carry a tremendous burden if he has to keep elaborate books for one class of labourer, we will call John, a second, Michael, and a third, William. The Minister ought to consider the administrative difficulties which this will entail to the humble citizen as well as to his own Department. While these administrative difficulties are bound to embarrass anyone, his Department, of course, have much greater facilities to overcome them than the ordinary citizen has.
It is in the interests of the persons who are complying with the Act that I make this change.
One understands now where the issues are joined. In my opinion, the sub-dividing of employees under this Act will make the carrying out of the Act very much more difficult than otherwise. I suggest to the Minister that he is dealing with this matter with a bureaucratic outlook.
No. I suggest to the Deputy that it does not make any difference to the employer whether the employees are put into different classes by the one Bill or by three Bills. Under this Bill he may have half-a-dozen different classes of employees, all subject to different regulations.
The Minister will agree with me that, having recommitted this Bill, it is open to us to draw his attention to that flaw when we come to the proper section.
There will be female, male and juvenile workers.
God Almighty made men and women. I do not propose to criticise His work——
— He is the only person whose work you have not criticised.
——but only the work of the Minister. As that complexity in regard to male and female workers already exists, I am appealing to the Minister not to add further complexities to the Divine order. From long experience, we can easily deal with the complexities that arise from people happening to be women and men, but it is quite another question if they are to be arbitrarily defined as different classes of working people. My case to the Minister is that he ought to keep the classes as few in number as he possibly can, and that this amendment of his is designed to create a new class, which he expects to regulate at a later date by a separate Bill, and as he has explained to Deputy Norton it is highly likely that he will have a third Bill regulating clerical employees as well. I urge on him most strongly to think twice before he does that, and to require his own permanent officials to overcome whatever administrative difficulties might arise as a result of leaving out the amendment which he proposes to insert in the Bill.
Might I make this submission to the Minister? I have in mind a quarry where sand and stone are quarried, and I have in mind two brick works. As one can imagine, there is a fair amount of cartage in those particular undertakings. In the quarry, for instance, which is close to a railway line, quite a considerable number of persons are employed carting material from the quarry to the railway line, and the product of the quarry is consigned, in the main, by rail. Under this amendment as proposed by the Minister, the carters, who go into work at the same hour as the ordinary persons engaged in quarrying, and finish work at the same time as the persons engaged in quarrying, will not be within the scope of this Bill, but the person engaged in the quarrying will be within the scope of the Bill. There is no question of any difficulty whatever arising in regulating the time of their arrival at the place of business, and the time of their departure. There is a slight difference in the kind of work they do. One uses a vehicle for it and the other does not, but there is no essential difference in the work. One man mines sand and stone in one portion of the quarry, and another person removes them from a certain other portion to a railway line. Who is doing the more valuable work?
In such a case it would be quite simple to regulate them both on the same basis. That is not a typical case. The trouble is that on the average case there will be difficulty.
Those persons come into work at the same time; they leave off at the same time and are paid substantially the same. There is no real difference whatever in the nature of the work which they do; yet the person making the bricks and engaged in handling, the bricks is going to be treated as within the scope of this Bill, and the man who carts them is outside the scope of the Bill. If this amendment is passed, the effect of it may be much wider than the Minister contemplates. It may be held, for instance, that the person whose normal job is carrying, say, sacks of flour from one portion of the mill to another portion of the mill is engaged in the cartage of goods. It may possibly be held that a person engaged by a big firm or a big undertaking, which has a variety of departments in it, in carrying goods from one department to another, is engaged on cartage within the scope of the Bill.
We are talking about transport here — not cartage.
What is the difference between transport and cartage?
They have a different significance.
As applied to bricks, for instance?
The removal of goods from one part of a premises to another is not transport of goods.
What is the difference between transport and cartage? I use the word "cartage" as something which defines the operation performed by people engaged in carting. Probably a more polite term for that would be "transport," but essentially they are the same operations. I think the Minister, by this amendment, is not going to cure difficulties for himself, but is probably going to cause difficulties, and that he is going to exclude from this Bill persons whom I contend should be within it. At least they ought to be within such portion of the Bill as it is possible to make applicable to them, until the specific application of the provisions arises. It should be possible for them to get bank holidays; it should be possible for them to get annual holidays; it should be possible for them to be allowed to work the maximum working week of 48 hours.
I agree, but I think it has to be done by a separate measure.
It can ultimately be done by a separate measure. Meantime, because of the fact that they are so closely allied on a vocational basis with those persons who are within the scope of the Bill, I think the Minister should bring them within the scope of the Bill at present. They can be excluded by a simple legislative act when the other Bill comes before the House. I plead with the Minister not to press this amendment because of the wide ramifications it may have.
It would be much more unsatisfactory to leave the position undetermined. I think it is better to have it clearly one way or another.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 62; Níl, 30.
Tá.
- Aiken, Frank.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Clery, Mícháel.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Corish, Richard.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Davis, Michael.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Everett, James.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Corish and Everett.
Amendment declared carried.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In page 4, Section 3 (1), line 10, to delete the word "includes" and substitute the words "subject to that limitation the said expression includes all forms of industrial work and in particular".
The purpose of the amendment is to make clear the nature of sub-section 1 of Section 3. This is practically a drafting amendment.
On this drafting amendment, I direct the Minister's attention to paragraph (a) which defines as industrial work:
"manufacturing, altering, cleaning, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, adapting for sale, testing, grading, packing, breaking up, demolishing, or transforming any article."
Will it be held under that paragraph that to pack goods in a retail shop, for sale, is adapting these goods for sale? The Minister is aware that in modern grocery practice almost all commodities requiring to be packed at all are not packed at the request of the customer, but are packed in preparation for sale and when called for are tendered to the customer as packed goods. Is it his intention that that preparatory packing will bring the person who does it within the scope of paragraph (a)?
No. It is only acknowledging that it should be done, when done on an industrial scale. The phrase used there is used in other statutes, and I think the meaning is fairly generally known at the present time. It has significance where it is intended to define industrial work adapted for sale. It does not cover such work when done in connection with a retail establishment.
If the Minister's words are included my difficulty will be answered. Will the Minister undertake, in the event of the courts holding that the words of the statute do not effect the purpose which he first prescribed, to introduce amending legislation to give effect to his intention, as he now expresses it; that is, that no packing operation carried out in connection with the retail distribution of goods shall be deemed to be industrial work within the meaning of this Bill?
Packing, of course, is covered definitely here. One of the words in paragraph (a) is "packing." The term "adapting for sale" really means altering. In any event, the whole of the section is merely a definition of industrial work. It may be that certain test cases will have to be brought into court to deal with borderline cases, but in relation to this particular phrase, the whole of paragraph (a) of this sub-section, these cases have, I think, occurred already. In any event, the phrase as it stands is taken from other statutes which have been in operation and in respect of which no such difficulty has arisen.
This, to my mind, begs the whole question. Why should we have test cases? Test cases should only arise if the Legislature has overlooked an ambiguous expression. The matter then goes to the courts and the courts remove the ambiguity. The purpose of a debate in a Committee of this House, to my mind, is to direct the attention of the Minister to possible ambiguities before they reach the stage of the test case; to ascertain from the Government what their intention definitely is, and, having ascertained it, to combine to find a form of words which will make it clear to the citizen and the courts what the purpose of the Legislature is.
I am referring to difficult cases where there may be doubts as to whether work done is industrial work or commercial work. In so far as work is done in connection with the sale, whether wholesale or retail, of any article, it is definitely excluded from the scope of the Bill by the definition of commercial work later in the section. The expression "commercial work," which is excluded from the scope of the Bill, means "work of a clerical nature, the work of overseeing, directing and managing industrial work, or work done for or in connection with the sale, wholesale or retail, of any article." That, I think, covers the type of packing which the Deputy has in mind. There may be border-line cases which will have to be decided in the courts. The aim is to try and make the legislation as specific as possible and avoid that possibility. But I do not know if it would be possible to get it so very specific and clear that doubtful cases will not arise. The only doubt arises as to whether work is being done as industrial work or in connection with the sale, whether wholesale or retail, of the article.
When the Minister drafted, or had drafted, paragraph (a) and included the word "packing," he must have had something in his mind. To the ordinary man in business packing is associated with the preparation for sale, either wholesale or retail. I cannot conceive any other purpose for packing anything. Would the Minister tell me one instance of packing goods which would not be either with a view to wholesale or retail trade? I cannot think of any packing operation that could be carried out which would conform to the Minister's definition of what he means by industrial packing.
All industrial work is done in connection with the sale of some article, but the work of packing may be part of the industrial work, such as the work of canning peas, which is clearly industrial work. In fact, the only thing that is done to peas is that they are packed.
Now we are getting an understanding of where we are and the purpose of the Bill. I can readily see a difference in an operation such as canning peas. That is the kind of information we ought to have. The Minister's desire is to differentiate that kind of operation from the operation of packing such as might take place in a shop. I urge on him strongly, if the Chair will allow a further amendment on the Report Stage, to consult experts on that question with a view to arriving at some words which will make the differentiation clear.
I think the definition of "commercial work" makes it clear.
I can assure the Minister that unless he does that, the ordinary merchants are going to be involved in endless test cases. These cases frequently occur. A merchant, perhaps, has large premises in which he conducts a wholesale and retail trade. Ordinarily, he packs his commodities for retail distribution on the counter. But some commodities, which he packs with the intention of distributing wholesale in outlying districts, he might pack in the store attached to his retail premises. Inevitably test cases are going to arise as to whether a worker who is packing in the store is not an industrial worker within the meaning of paragraph (a), and unless the Minister makes it perfectly clear, by the choice of some words that, where the operation is merely one of convenience for the wholesale or retail distribution of goods, it is a commercial and not an industrial occupation, you are bound to have endless test cases arising. We ought to try to avoid them. We all have bitter experience of test cases that are continually arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, that keep a considerable part of the Law Library busy. It would be highly undesirable if this legislation were to give rise to a similar state of affairs. I therefore urge strongly on the Minister this particular point, and point out that further clarification is necessary. I recognise that he cannot do it out-of-hand here, but I suggest that between now and the Report Stage he should give attention to that matter.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 4, Section 3 (1), to delete paragraph (c).
I announced during the discussion on the Committee Stage that it was proposed to delete from the scope of the Bill the class of work covered by paragraph (c), that is work done in warehouses where mechanical means of lifting are employed, and to regard that class of work as coming within the scope of commercial work which will be dealt with in a separate measure. The difficulties that might arise in certain cases if we left paragraph (c) in the Bill are considerable, and we think it better, for the purpose of effective operation of the measure and effective definition of the class of workers to which it applies, that work done in warehouses should be excluded from the Bill and dealt with in the measure which will deal with commercial operations generally.
So far we have not heard what the considerable difficulties the Minister anticipated were.
Various examples will occur, such as work done in warehouses in connection with railways, docks, etc., where the workers in one warehouse might be within the scope of the Bill and the workers in another warehouse outside the scope of the Bill. We do not think it is a sufficiently clear definition of the nature of the work done to say that the only workers to be covered are those employed in warehouses where mechanical means of lifting are employed. We should have all warehouses either in or out. I think it is more appropriate that they should be set out of this Bill, and in a Bill dealing with commercial work.
How far does this invade what are the normal intentions of the Bill? Take a person engaged, let us say, in storing flour in a mill, packing it away until such time as an order is received for it, packing any kind of industrial product manufactured by that particular firm, not packed from, let us say, a railway store, or a port, or anything else. Will not that person now be excluded from the scope of the Bill?
All warehouse workers will be excluded.
So that the mill-worker who is normally engaged in the mill, in respect of the portion of the mill in which he is engaged warehousing or storing the goods — although he has nothing to do with a port or a railway — will still be outside the scope of this Bill?
The Deputy is doing what he did in the case of a previous Bill connected with transport. One can get cases of such workers so closely analogous with industrial workers that it is very difficult to exclude them. On the other hand, one can find cases which clearly justify their exclusion. We think it is better to draw the line between the factory and the warehouse and to let the warehouseman be regarded from another standpoint. It is not intended that they shall be excluded from the benefits of this legislation, but that their cases should be covered by a different Bill.
I must call the Minister's attention to the fact that it was not we who put Section 1, sub-section (c) in this Bill. This is the Minister's Bill, and the Minister, when his mind was playing clearly on this Bill——
No. I explained, on Committee Stage, that that was not quite the case. When preparing this Bill, we took the definition of industrial worker which appeared in the Washington Hours Convention, but, having regard to representations made since the Bill was introduced——
By various parties interested in the provisions of the Bill. Having regard to these representations, we decided that certain amendments were desirable in the circumstances prevailing here, whatever might be embodied in the Washington Hours Agreement. I informed the Dáil to-day that I hope to have a Bill introduced in this Session dealing with this particular matter.
When this Bill was first circulated and when it had run the gauntlet of keen scrutiny in the Minister's own Department, all the wiseacres there at that time thought it perfectly desirable to put sub-section (c) in this section. In other words, when the Department were examining this Bill in the first instance they, as a Department, felt that it was desirable that sub-section (c) should be in this Bill, and that was the Bill as it passed through the House in the Second Stage, the Minister indicating on the Committee Stage, when he got representations from somebody, that the proposal to include warehousing of goods in any warehouse was to be excluded on the Report Stage. I should like to know from the Minister, who made the representations, and were the workers, the people engaged in warehousing, consulted as to whether they consented to their exclusion from the scope of the Bill?
It was discussed with them.
With what body was it discussed?
With the Trades Union Congress.
The Trades Union Congress? Do I take it from the Minister that the Trades Union Congress agreed to the proposal?
I did not say that they agreed to it. I said that the matter was discussed with them.
I did not say that either.
In saying so, the Deputy is taking a chance.
Well, if so, he is only following the well-beaten track of the Minister in that respect. I suggest that no trade union body would be in favour of the exclusion of warehousemen and people engaged in warehousing from the scope of this Bill.
The Deputy is again misrepresenting the case. It is not a question of whether persons engaged in warehousing are to be denied the benefits of this Bill, but of whether it is more convenient to give them these benefits within the scope of this measure, or in another measure shortly to be introduced.
Is it proposed to put this paragraph in the Commercial Bill?
To include them in the Bill dealing with that.
So that the people who would be excluded will be included in the Commercial Bill?
But I do not see any reason whatever to wait for that. I am not so sure that it will be as speedily introduced as the Minister indicates. If there is any difficulty in classifying warehousing as industrial work, then we ought to know what the difficulties are, but the Minister has made very feeble efforts to justify himself in this. Let us take the case of persons engaged in warehousing flour.
Persons engaged in a store or warehouse attached to a factory, in which the goods in that factory are handled, are not excluded by the provisions of this section. This relates to warehousing as a separate occupation.
They are included as persons doing industrial work for or in connection with——
——for or in connection with any of the activities set out there.
Will that apply whether they are warehousing by mechanical means or not?
Well, then, taking it out does not seem to matter.
There are certain warehouses which are warehouses only. I gave two examples of these already — those connected with the railway and those located at the ports. They are not associated with any industrial concern. They are warehouses which warehouse or store goods in connection with the transport organisations which serve them. It was intended that the workers employed in such warehouses should be included in this Bill originally, where these mechanical means of lifting were used, because that was the recommendation embodied in the Washington Hours Convention. On reconsideration, however, we came to the conclusion that it would be more expedient to deal with these workers in a separate measure as commercial workers than to deal with them in this Bill. It is merely a matter of securing effective administration, and the exclusion to be made here is not for the purpose of depriving these workers of the benefits of this measure, as I have explained already, but because we think that these benefits can be better secured to them in another manner.
Will the Minister give us specific examples of a warehousing operation that will be excluded?
All warehousing operations will be excluded.
I understand the distinction with regard to industrial work; but could the Minister give me an example where they will not be?
Well, any of the warehouses along the quays.
Take a warehouse for goods which are to undergo some process of repairing or reconstruction for the purpose of being sold — is that out?
Oh, no. If there were any work in the form of repairing or adapting the articles, that is industrial work at any rate.
I want to continue to make the case I stood up to make, namely, that already the Minister, by carrying amendment No. 7, has excluded the transport and cartage of goods, even from the factory in which industrial work is being undertaken. Now he proceeds, by this amendment, to suggest that the warehousing or the storage of the goods in an industrial undertaking should be also excluded, and the effect of these two amendments is definitely to worsen whatever benefits are conferred by this section of this Bill. The Minister may say it is desirable to include warehousing when they come to deal with commercial activity. That may be true, but there is no difficulty in leaving them in this Bill, any more than there is difficulty in leaving carters in the Bill. I think that they ought to be left in the Bill until such time as some other Bill is introduced which will regulate more precisely their conditions in relation to any other persons who are somewhat comparable from a vocational standpoint; but there is no case at all for the exclusion of warehousemen at the moment. There may be a case for a better grouping of them later on when you have two or three Bills dealing with the regulation of industries, but that is a case for assigning them to a more clearly definable category. But it is not a case for excluding them from the scope of this Bill, especially as the Minister already proposed when the Bill passed its Second Reading to allow them to remain in the Bill. I think amendment No. 7 is definitely worsening the Bill and so is this amendment. There is no case for removing the scope of them. Any classification can be done later when other Bills are available. In the meantime they ought to be allowed to occupy the position which was assigned to them when this Bill was circulated to the House and when it was subsequently adopted.
Sub-section (c) of Section 3 (1) is, if excluded, going to create a great anomaly, for men working in goods stores are classified as warehousemen. These men would at other times be turned on to shunt in the yards. It would be almost impossible to differentiate what classification they would then be in. I think that is what the Minister had in mind when he was first considering this Bill and I think it would not be of advantage to the Bill to have paragraph (c) deleted. I would ask the Minister to try if he could see his way to make clear that men partly engaged in warehouses as distinct from men entirely occupied in warehouses are included.
They are included. In fact the decision to delete paragraph (c) is a corollary to the decision to keep transport out of this Bill and to deal with that as a separate measure. There would be considerable confusion created if you try to deal with warehousemen and exclude transport.
I have been trying to understanad what the differentiation is. It is obviously impossible to construe warehousemen as being industrial workers because the mere phraseology "industrial workers" would rule out warehousemen, for warehousemen were not deemed to be industrial workers. Industrial work is done in connection with any of the following activities —"manufacturing, altering, cleaning, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, adapting for sale," and so on. Paragraph (a) of Section 3 (1) is widespread. I ask the Minister if there is a type of warehousing that is not for one of the purposes in paragraph (a). There is one that stands out — simple storage — not a hand laid on the article for the purpose of "packing, breaking up, demolishing, or transforming any article for sale." I think in that case that warehousing would be industrial work. When the Minister was dealing with a Bill intended for industrial occupations he thought fit to include simple storage as long as it was simple storage effected by mechanical power. He tells us now that he got that definition from the Washington Convention. That Convention was the result of international agreement. A variety of other minds and other Parliaments decided that simple storage as long as it was done by mechanical means was an industrial occupation. Why are we now asked to decide that it is not?
We are not asked to decide it.
We are asked not to include it is a Bill dealing with industrial occupations.
They also include work done in connection with a type of shop which we are not including at all. We think they should be excluded.
There is the intention of putting warehousing effected by mechanical means into the category of commercial work.
Has the Minister yet even made an approach to the conditions of commercial and transport workers — are the conditions to be much the same as here? Why not then, as there is likely to be some disorganisation in this, leave it over until the thing comes along?
Obviously there would be more confusion caused by doing that then.
There is possibly some reason why these are to be taken up now. We were told this came in here because of the reliance upon the Washington Convention. I do not think this was discussed from the angle from which the Minister is now approaching it — of taking it all together. I raised the point as to the distinction in the last few phrases as to whether mechanical effect was by mechanical power. The Minister was reluctant to give us any information. I think that was the only point raised on it. Now, having to alter the thing, there must be some reason for it and there ought to be an argument for doing that. But the only argument that has been advanced is that we are to take the original proposal because the original proposal commends itself to that view. Even storage in relation to any of these things is more easily dealt with as an industrial occupation and will cause less trouble than the mixed business. How is the owner of such a warehouse going to make discrimination between his staff employed partly on this and partly on other work? We are told that that would be carried out in the Bill that is promised later. Is the owner asked to make a division of the staff and say that some are never employed except simply as storage men? I suggest the paragraph should be left in.
In my opinion paragraph (c) in the Bill when it was originally introduced was an error. When I decided the Bill should not apply to dock labourers, men engaged in shipping and transport, I should also have decided to take out this paragraph. It would be impossible to have those employed in connection with warehousing covered by this Bill. On the other hand, whatever resolution deals with one group should deal with the lot.
Why should not the Minister come to the point by saying that warehousing in connection with paragraph (a) is excluded?
We need not go to that extent. The exclusion of paragraph (c) makes it clear that industrial workers of any kind, and particularly in connection with the activities there covered by the Bill, are referred to. The matter would then be clarified when the whole field is covered by other measures dealing with other classes of work and with measures which will provide the same general conditions even if they were to be enforced in a different manner.
Has the Minister considered what is to happen as between two classes of merchants — one of them warehouse men, and the other people who do their own warehousing, firms like the Dublin Warehousing Company? If paragraph (c) is deleted from this Bill you will have a situation in which a warehousing company is excluded altogether, whereas the merchant who does his own warehousing will, under Section 47 of the Bill, find that his warehousing is deemed for the purposes of this Bill to be "industrial work." So that two merchants engaged in exactly the same trade will have to carry on their business under entirely different conditions.
Only so long as there may be delay in introducing the second measure.
Again, I put it to the Minister that while there is a desire on the part of everybody to co-operate in social legislation of any kind, it is neither prudent nor fair to add to the complexities of the necessary legislation, and to create a situation in which two merchants engaged in virtually an identical calling——
Merchants will not be affected at all.
—— are at a disadvantage as compared with one another is a highly undesirable state of affairs. The Minister says that merchants will not be affected.
This is warehousing in connection with industrial work.
The Minister says that merchants will not be concerned at all, but let them be merchants or industrialists that does not matter. One industrialist may warehouse his goods in the Dublin Warehousing Company. Another industrialist may do it on his own premises and in his own warehouse. Therefore, you have these two men engaged in exactly similar activities operating under different circumstances. The Minister says this is only for a short time until he has had an opportunity of getting round to the remaining cases. But it may be a year or two before the Minister can hope to cover all the ground of a complex scheme of legislation such as he has in mind. Why not leave paragraph (c) in until his new Bill is ready for submission to the House, and then if he wants to lift this class of workers into the other Bill and codify the regulations for them under the new Act, he can insert a section in the new Bill repealing paragraph (c) of Section 3 of this Bill when the new Bill comes into operation, thus avoiding, even for a period, an inequality between two citizens of the State.
I urge on the Minister not only in connection with this Bill but all analogous Bills that as regards the operations of his Department one of the principal dangers that beset his activities is discriminating against one citizen, sometimes involuntarily, and sometimes, as I have alleged, deliberately. That gives rise to bad feeling and creates prejudice in the minds of those who would wish to co-operate. If this kind of legislation is to be a success, my belief is that it should be put into force without causing undue inconvenience to anyone. Otherwise it is going to react in a most undesirable way against the whole trend of this legislation. If, for a year or two there are going to be administrative difficulties for every employer in the country, I urge him to withdraw the amendment and leave paragraph (c) in until the amending legislation is introduced.
I feel that whether the section is left in or out there is going to be apparent discrimination in the case of certain types of workers. I believe there will be grave discrimination in the case of railway workers and those working in goods stores and warehouses and that it will be practically impossible to apply this section. There is not much use in introducing legislation that is going to create a situation of that sort. I think it would be better to wait for the other measure the Minister has promised, the one that is to deal with the whole of the transport industry. A very difficult situation will be created if those engaged in warehousing in industrial concerns are to be in one category and those engaged in warehousing in transport sheds, quays, and railways are to be in another. The real danger in this was adverted to by Deputy Norton that men may be included in the category of warehousing by simply storing flour, the product of their own mills, in a room upstairs pending shipment. The Minister said that was not intended. In my opinion, it would be better to leave this whole question over to be dealt with in the Bill promised by the Minister.
Amendment put and declared carried.
I move amendment No. 10:—
In page 4, Section 3 (1), paragraph (d), line 28, to delete the word "cleaning" and substitute the word "clearing".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:—
In page 4, Section 3 (1), before paragraph (j) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"(j) quarrying, irrespective of the depth of the quarry."
It is not quite clear from the Bill as it stands that quarrying is included amongst the activities covered by the sub-section. It has been decided that it should be included. I, therefore, move to insert this new paragraph to remove all doubts on the matter.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:—
In page 4, Section 3 (1) (j), line 38, before the word "fitting" to insert the words "reconstructing, maintaining, repairing, altering".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:—
In page 4, Section 3 (1) (j), lines 39 and 40, to delete the words "or demolishing the foundations of any building" and substitute the words "laying or removing foundations, or laying out or clearing the site for the construction of any building."
Would the Minister say what the position will be in relation to paragraph (1) when paragraph (j) is amended?
That you could have workers engaged in the removal of stone, slate or sand, otherwise than for the purpose of quarrying. Take the removal of stone or sand from the seashore.
The removal of slate or stone from the seashore? Would the Minister say what really he has in mind?
That all forms of activity, other than mining, will come within the scope of the Bill — all forms of activity of that description.
Quarrying is separately dealt with, and mining is excluded. Would the Minister say what is "removing from the ground stone, slate or sand otherwise than for the purpose of a mine" that is not mining and is not quarrying?
The meaning of "removing from the ground stone, slate or sand otherwise than for the purpose of a mine" is so obvious that if the Deputy does not understand it himself I despair of explaining it to him.
Then I can only try to get some further explanation.
I do not know that the Deputy will succeed.
I probably will not. That has been a distinguishing feature of the Minister in connection with this Bill.
Hear, hear. Deputy Norton's eyes are at last being opened.
Deputy Dillon's support is most embarrassing.
It is not support, but patronage.
The Deputy could have dropped that patronising manner, but he seems to exude it, and, as if people did not know it, he persists in reminding them of it. The Minister has moved an amendment here because he says he is doubtful whether quarrying is in the Bill, and he moves to insert quarrying irrespective of the depth of the quarry. Then we are asked to envisage another kind of operation which is not mining and is not quarrying, because quarrying is dealt with in the new section (j). We are asked to visualise an operation which is "removing from the ground stone, slate or sand otherwise than for the purpose of a mine." If any ill-digested phrase could be imagined in connection with the Bill, surely that is a classic example.
What is the Deputy's objection to it?
A natural aversion to a foolish phrase.
He must have developed that during the Recess.
As a matter of fact I had a note in reference to this matter of a quarry on the Committee Stage, but I overlooked the matter. Now we are told that a quarry is one thing and that "removing from the ground stone, slate or sand otherwise than for the purpose of a mine" is another thing. I suggest that the Minister does not know what he has in mind at all and that he is just endeavouring to patch up this admission about the quarry, leaving an inexplicable phrase in the Bill. Whatever kind this industrial undertaking is going to be, surely we ought to know it in some easily defined phrase. Surely there is some way of describing it.
They are making a sea wall down at Clontarf in which they are using stones and sand they are not quarrying.
This phrase ought to be buried in it, because it is of no use. I should like the Minister to tell us what is meant by the phrase.
Does the Deputy not know what is meant by "removing from the ground stone, slate or sand"?
What industry is that if not quarrying?
It is hard work. It is the business of removing from the ground stone, slate or sand.
If that means anything it means a man removing stones or sand with a cart. The Minister says that carting is excluded.
They do not remove sand from the ground with a cart. They use a shovel as a rule.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:—
In page 4, Section 3 (1), to delete paragraph (n).
The amendment is to exclude from the Bill the work indicated in paragraph (n). I feel that if we are going to have separate legislation dealing with the regulation of employment in mines, that legislation should also deal with work ancillary to work in the mines, such as the sorting or preparing for sale the produce of any mine. That is rather away from the scope of this measure, and I accordingly propose to delete paragraph (n).
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:—
In page 4, Section 3 (1), before paragraph (n) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—
"(n) Printing and all other modes (exclusive of writing and typewriting) of representing or reproducing words, figures, pictures or designs."
There is some doubt as to whether printing is included in the scope of the section as it stands. It is definitely intended that it should be included, and I am proposing to insert a paragraph with that object.
Has printing been defined by statute? One difficulty presents itself to my mind immediately and therefore I apprehend others. The Minister is aware that in most modern drapery stores price tickets are printed on the premises as an ordinary activity in the business of retail distribution. Is it intended that clerks employed in retail stores printing price tickets should be deemed to be engaged in industrial work under this Bill?
I think they are excluded by the definition of commercial work. The Deputy may be aware, because I mentioned it before, that one of the reasons why we are introducing Section 4 is that Woolworths was held to be a factory because they had a small machine for printing visiting cards on one of their counters. We are proposing therefore in Section 4 to take power to exclude from the provisions of the Bill an undertaking where the amount of the industrial work done is small. I should imagine that the printing of tickets for the sale of goods in a drapery establishment would be covered by that provision.
I take it that under Section 4, the Minister intends to remove anomalies by issuing licences to carry on questionable activities of that kind. For instance stencilling might be held to be printing. The Minister would be satisfied that is not an industrial occupation?
In every case where an application is made under Section 4 the matter would be examined, the intention being to exclude the occupation where the amount of work done would be infinitesimal.
I presume the Minister intends to exclude work done by a totting machine or compiling machine. I do not know if he specifically mentioned if they would be excluded. I am afraid we could not describe them as typewriting machines.
I think that, obviously, they would be excluded.
I am informed that there is some alarm in newspaper offices over this amendment and it would be very advisable to leave the matter in abeyance for some time further. I have not been briefed on the matter but I understand that some alarm exists.
I had no representations whatever to that effect. I did assume originally that printing was included in the section as it stood. It was when a doubt was raised as to whether the existing phraseology was sufficiently clear on the point that I had the matter considered and I decided that in the interests of safety, it was desirable to have the new paragraph inserted. I have received no representations from the printing houses although I have had other representations on behalf of the employees in connection with the doubt I have mentioned.
I have been informed that there is some misgiving amongst the newspapers and they intend to approach the Minister. It would be advisable therefore to leave over consideration of the amendment.
I would prefer to have it inserted. If there are any special circumstances operating in newspaper offices which would justify exclusion, or the exercise of any of the provisions under which exclusion may be permitted, that would be in relation to particular parts of the industry, but not in relation to the industry as a whole. I propose therefore to insert the paragraph, whatever representations we may afterwards receive.
It is intended to apply it to newspapers?
They are subject to very definite limitations in regard to hours of work and so forth and none of the permitted exclusions will really satisfy such things as that. Take for instance the publication of a Sunday newspaper.
There is complete power of exclusion under Section 22.
To declare that newspaper work will not be industrial work?
No, but to exclude it from the scope of any of the provisions of Part III of the Bill.
Then it comes to this, that you cannot make any regulation——
So far as Sunday work is concerned, it is definitely excluded from Section 41 — the printing of newspapers. Section 41 deals with work on Sundays and public holidays.
That is not the point. Take the printing on a Saturday night for Sunday. The Minister may exclude it, or may make regulations excluding it for certain purposes, but he cannot do that with regard to the provisions which relate to the hours of work, unless after consultation. There are limitations on the exclusions that can be made. Let me put this point: I am not saying the Minister would like to do this; but if he did like to do it, it is open to him under the terms of the Bill — to prevent the printing of a newspaper for sale on a Sunday, by the same staff of compositors as have been on duty right through the week, even though they are paid at overtime rates of wages.
There is complete power to exclude any form of work from Part III of the Act, which deals with hours and times of work.
Is there not a limitation in sub-section (2) that it cannot be done without consulting representatives?
If this had been included in the Bill originally, I might have moved an amendment to take it out. It has now been put in on what is called the Report Stage. If the House accepts it, judgment is passed and I cannot move to exclude newspapers from the ordinary regulations. The Minister has created that difficulty by this late introduction. What can I do in the circumstances? Of course I can argue against this now, but if the House takes a decision on it, do you see the position in which I am placed? If that had been in the Bill I could have moved an amendment in Committee to take it out.
In other circumstances I could have got a case prepared, and all the points with regard to this proposal considered — whether the exclusion would be justified and whether it was possible.
The Deputy may not be so uneasy if I assure him that I know from recent experience that the conditions of employment in newspaper offices are considerably better than the minimum conditions which we are proposing to provide in this Bill.
Then there is no special urgency about this. Why not hold this over until the real Report Stage, when we can prepare whatever details there are to be prepared? It only means that this is held over for a few days.
I do not know that it makes any great difference. The only question was whether the existing section could be interpreted to include printing. Having regard to the provisions of the section, I think it is fairly obvious that printing is included and if a special form of printing requires the making of an exclusion Order, the exclusion Order will be made. I do not think we should exclude printing altogether from the scope of the measure.
I am merely asking that the decision to put it in should not be taken to-day, but should be taken on the Report Stage.
I do not think the Deputy can say that he has not had reasonable notice of the amendment.
I might have had, but what could I do? I could not put down an amendment against a suggestion. The position I should have been in is this, that that should have been in the text of the Bill and I could then have put an amendment against it.
I think the Deputy had ample notice of the intention.
Let me assume that I had notice by registered letter, what could I do? Under the procedure here you cannot put down an amendment to an amendment.
You can. There are several on the Amendment Paper to-day.
It may be quite accidental; but there is no such procedure in this House as putting down an amendment to a suggested amendment, unless the matter has been discussed previously and the amendments are in the form of gathering a formula to meet something already discussed. In such a position one would have knowledge of it. How am I to suggest the deletion of that? I could not put down an amendment to delete words which are not there in the Bill.
Vote against the amendment.
But that does not give time to get the matter reasonably put before the House. I put it to the Minister: Would it delay the progress of the Bill to hold over the insertion of that? It is not that he is weakening in his arguments; it is simply that the matter remains in abeyance for a few days. I would like to get an opportunity of discussing this. This Parliament is meeting here for the discussion of Bills such as this. We are supposed to argue these things, and when a Bill is finally passed it is supposed to embody the results of our discussions. I see no way in the present circumstances of putting down a reasoned amendment against this. I am merely asking the Minister, in view of the difficulty of procedure brought about by his own action, that he should hold over the amendment until the Report Stage. It is not a very big request.
I was questioned on the Committee Stage as to whether printing was included in the scope of the measure and I said it was; it was clear to everybody that it was included. When, on re-examination, I felt that that might not be reasonably clear, I proposed to put in an amendment and I had that circulated in the ordinary way and no case has been made against it by anybody. The mere fact that Section 22 requires consultation, is not an argument. In the particular trade we are now discussing, a trade so highly organised from the trade union point of view, it would be impossible for any body of employers to take action except in consultation with the trade unions concerned, who are probably the most powerful trade unions in the country.
I am sure the Minister will agree that he wants discussion of a rational and constructive kind when he brings a Bill of this kind before the House?
Apparently by an unavoidable circumstance he was unable to introduce into the Bill this paragraph which he proposes to put in by way of amendment. Clearly, he would have put it in the body of the Bill but for an oversight, inasmuch as he did not think it was necessary at first. Now, all that is suggested to him is this, we want to discuss the Bill intelligently and make it a good Bill and we would like an opportunity later of discussing this particular matter. The Minister may have at his disposal all the information he requires, but we have not. We do not ask him to yield an inch of his position or leave the House under the impression that he is prepared to be swayed by argument. We are prepared to believe that he has made up his mind definitely. We merely ask him to put this one item back to the next Stage so that whatever case we have to make in relation to it may be fully made.
If you want intelligent and helpful discussion of Bills of this kind, you are bound to accede to that request. If, on the other hand, you want to steam-roll legislation of a wholly noncontroversial kind through the House, you can pursue the line you are at present travelling. The fact of it is that the Minister has got his heels in the ground now and he is blowed if he is going to give way. It is a very foolish attitude to take up, because it means that both sides of the House begin to wrangle over comparative trivialities. The matter can be disposed of in a moment if the Minister will consent to putting the thing back to the next Stage. Our case will be stated in five or six minutes, but, if the Minister remains adamant, the matter will go to a division and there will be an end of it. The other course will give the House and the country the satisfaction of knowing that, when the Minister understands that a cogent case is going to be put up, he will give time to prepare it.
I do not understand that, nor do I understand that Deputies have any difficulty in having whatever case they wish to put up between now and Report Stage. I am not going to let Deputy Dillon represent me as unreasonable or provide himself with an excuse for being unreasonable. This Bill has been before the House for six months. It is fully three months since we discussed it in Committee and, in Committee, this question of whether printing was or was not included was raised. I expressed the opinion then, which opinion I still hold, that even without this amendment printing is covered by sub-section (1) of this section. If there is a particular matter to be raised in relation to the printing of newspapers or the printing of particular types of newspapers, there is nothing to prevent Deputy Dillon or Deputy McGilligan putting down an amendment which will enable that matter to be raised on the Report Stage. The matter can be fully discussed then, but no reason has been advanced as to why this clarification of the definition in sub-section (1) should not be inserted now and the particular matter which it is desired to raise raised on a specific amendment directed towards that point. It is a full month since the amendment was circulated to members of the Dáil.
Indeed it is not, but, to start with, I want to ask for your ruling, Sir. If this amendment is passed to-night will it be permissible to put down a further amendment to this section on Report Stage to exclude newspapers?
Would the Minister accept a suggestion from me, as one fully conversant with the industry in all its branches? I would suggest that the Minister should get in touch with the proprietors of newspapers particularly and with representatives of the operatives in connection with this amendment of his. I would also suggest to the Minister — and I think it ought to meet the position created — that he should insert after the word "typewriting" at the end of the parenthesis in his amendment the words "and newspaper production". Would the Minister accept that if I handed in a formal amendment?
I put my point again. It has been expressed to us that the amendment was definitely intended to include newspaper printing. If that amendment is carried to-night, will it be permissible for me, as a Deputy, to put down a further amendment at Report Stage to exclude newspapers? If that is so, I am satisfied, but I want a ruling on it.
The Minister must surely be aware that the exigencies of newspaper production frequently require that overtime should be worked, and sometimes perhaps an inordinate amount of overtime, against which many trade unions protest and protest rightly. It would mean the employment of more men in the industry, but the exigencies of the business frequently call for overtime on certain occasions. Let us take, for instance, the publication of the Sweepstake results. That necessitated the working of extra overtime in the Dublin newspapers, and the Minister must also be aware that at the time of general elections, for instance, a very large number of hours of overtime are worked. Provision cannot be made because of limitations of space, etc., to employ extra men. If I could see my way to do away with overtime I should be only too happy to do so, but these occasions occur fairly frequently in newspaper production, and I suggest to the Minister that before pressing his amendment he would get into consultation with representatives of the printing industry, and particularly the newspaper branch of the printing industry, and with representatives of the workers in the industry with a view to hammering out some form of words that would meet the wishes both of himself and of the persons engaged in the industry.
Regarding Deputy McGilligan's point, I do not want to decide on what is somewhat academic, but Deputy McGilligan will realise that the ordinary rules governing amendments apply. I am of opinion, however, that means could be found by which Deputy McGilligan could effect by amendment at a later Stage what he seems to desire.
So that amendments will not be ruled out because they seem to negative a decision taken in Committee?
It is not exactly negativing.
Very well; I am satisfied.
Would the Minister accept my suggestion?
I think newspapers should be covered by the Bill. I have heard no reason why they should not.
Would the Minister keep an open mind on the subject?
An open mind that they are in?
I think they should be covered. There may be a case for exclusion but I have not heard it.
I want an assurance from the Minister that in relation to the class of work to which I have referred the necessity that exists for overtime at certain periods will not be affected by this amendment.
The Bill permits of various classes of overtime being worked, and also permits certain classes of work to be entirely excluded from the scope of several sections.
But overtime such as will be necessary on the occasion of the next Sweep results? This will not operate injuriously against the industry?
The Deputy may be assured of that. I shall be as anxious to see the results as he will himself.
I should like to know in respect of what does the Minister give an assurance that he is going to keep an open mind. We believed that printing and newspaper production were within the scope of the Bill and we have Section 47 which provides — so surely are they in — facilities by which certain exemptions can be granted, in respect of newspaper production. Do I understand from the Minister that he is giving Deputy Good an assurance that he is going to keep an open mind as to whether they should or should not be in? I understood that the Minister had already decided that his interpretation of the Bill was that they were in and that he was going to keep them in.
I think they are in, and should be in, and I have heard no reason to the contrary, but I will say that if good reasons to the contrary are advanced, I am prepared to reconsider that decision.
Amendment No. 15 agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:—
In page 5, Section 3 (2), line 5, after the word "restaurant" to add the words "or in a place where the person who carries on such hotel or restaurant caters for the supply of meals."
This amendment is intended to meet a difficulty that might arise in connection with persons engaged in hotel or restaurant work. As the definition of domestic work stands in the Bill, it includes the work of preparing food in any hotel or restaurant if the food so prepared is intended only for consumption in such hotel or restaurant. But, as Deputies are aware, it is the custom for caterers and hotel keepers occasionally to take a contract for providing food temporarily in various places where functions are held, such as the caterers who provide food at the Horse Show and Spring Show and persons who operate buffets at bazaars and fetês and so on. It is desired to extend the definition by including work done in connection with the supply of food by the proprietor of a hotel or restaurant to such a place, and, therefore we are adding the words set out in the amendment. These people are excluded from the Bill.
I think that is a wise provision, but I should like to ask what would be the position of a hotel proprietor who gives a luncheon basket to a party going to the races. Would that put him in a different category?
In any event, they are outside the scope of this Bill. The work of transporting the luncheon basket is not industrial work.
The work of eating the luncheon is not industrial work.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:—
In page 5, before Section 5, to insert a new section as follows:—
This Act applies in relation to persons employed by or under the State (other than members of the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann or of the Gárda Síochána) in like manner as if such persons were employed by a private person.
It was my intention that this Bill should apply to persons employed on industrial work by State departments.
On reconsideration of the position, my advisers think that it would not be clear unless stated in so many words in the Bill. Therefore, we are proposing to insert a new section to put it beyond doubt that the Act applies in relation to persons employed by or under the State other than members of the defence forces or Gárda Síochána in like manner as if such persons were employed by a private person.
Amendment agreed to.
On the section, I should like to say——
The section has not been re-committed.
May I not speak on the section?
I move amendment No. 18, which was discussed and decided on amendment No. 4.
I did not understand that it was discussed and decided then.
It was certainly discussed and I think I am correct in what I stated. Amendment No. 4 has been carried, and if amendment No. 18 were not passed, the whole provision in respect of public holidays would have to drop. As we have carried amendment No. 4, we have to put something in its place and the only thing we can put in its place, as the Bill stands, is amendment No. 18.
The Minister has yet to get the amendment accepted.
I propose the amendment. I think that it is an excellent one in every way.
I think that it is a very bad amendment. I prefer the Minister's original intention to this amendment.
I was persuaded by members of the Labour Party to depart from my original intention.
The Minister was not persuaded by us.
Deputy Murphy's eloquence was largely responsible for my decision.
I do not believe that, if the expression is in order. In the Bill, there was definite provision for public holidays which were defined as St. Patrick's Day, Easter Monday, Whit Monday, the first Monday in August, Christmas Day, St. Stephen's Day and any day which might at any time be substituted as a holiday for any of such days. If the Bill had been carried in that form, it would have been possible for every worker to have got the benefit of its provision in respect of exemption from work, with pay, on public holidays. The Minister is now proposing to put in, instead of that sensible section, a provision which opens the door for considerable misunderstanding, considerable friction and considerable disappointment so far as many workers are concerned. The Minister is preserving the same definition of public holidays as is in the Bill but he is giving by his amendment any employer power to disregard the public holidays and substitute certain religious holidays. I am not opposed to the substitution of religious holidays. There may be good reason for doing so, particularly in certain areas where religious holidays are more largely recognised than bank holidays. But the Minister has opened the door so widely that he permits an employer in an area where bank holidays are now generally recognised to adopt some other day in lieu of them. That may be a day at some other season of the year when the facilities available to the worker on bank holidays are not available. The Minister, in discussing another amendment, said he believed that employers would be guided by the custom of the locality. If that were done and if there were some measure of agreement between workers and employers, everything would be all right, but it is possible under this amendment for all but one of the employers in a particular locality — the City of Dublin, or of Cork or Waterford — to say that they intend to observe the first Monday in August as a public holiday and for the one employer to say: "I prefer to observe some other holiday in lieu of that." The purpose of his doing so may be to get advantage over a trade rival or to inconvenience his own employees in the event of there being friction between him and them. Why should there not be some well-defined basis of deciding under what circumstances the substitution is to take place? Let the municipality or the local authority, where there is a local authority, decide the matter, or let there be agreement between the persons affected and the employers. In the event of disagreement, there might be no substitution or the Minister might decide the matter. These are all well-known, previously tried remedies. The Minister proposes to allow the employer unilaterally to say: "I substitute a particular holiday for a well-known bank holiday. I have complied with the section by giving a month's notice and that is all there is about it."
In that case, an employer who is under an obligation to pay the worker for, say, the holiday on the first Monday in August may not pay him for that particular holiday but may pay him for some other holiday. I want to tie down the employer to liability to pay the worker for whatever day is observed as a bank holiday in the district. Under this amendment, it is not possible to do that because an individual employer is not obliged to take any notice of what anybody else is doing. He is obliged to satisfy only himself. Deputy Cosgrave said that he did not know of any case in which it would be advantageous to an employer to open a laundry on the first Monday in August. I wish Deputy Cosgrave would have a talk with some laundry proprietor as to that. It might be possible for other employers to secure an advantage in the same way. I know that the argument against the likelihood of their doing that is that the workers have a holiday on that day. But the employer will now be able to come along and say: "That was all right when we were relying on tradition in closing on a bank holiday but here is a measure which legislatively gives us a choice between that day and some other day. We are entitled to make that choice, tradition notwithstanding." The employer is entitled to say to the employee under the amendment: "If you do not attend for work on the first Monday in August, you will get no pay in respect of that day, as I have selected some other holiday for you." This seems to be a rule of thumb of dealing with what is a fairly important matter. The original provision was immensely preferable to the uncertainty which will arise under the Minister's amendment and I should like the Minister to go back to the Bill, as originally drawn, unless he is prepared to agree that the workers should be consulted on the question of what should be substituted for a well-known bank holiday. If the Minister is not prepared to agree to that, he should, in the last resort, take power to decide the matter in dispute.
I certainly think the workers ought to be consulted. I think no sensible employer would do what is suggested by the Deputy. What is to be the position if the employers and workers do not agree?
I think the Minister should decide the matter.
I am not prepared to make that decision in respect of every individual industrial undertaking in the country. I think that would be an impossible position for any Minister to get himself into. The obvious course is the one we are taking. Where public holidays are not taken, some very good reason will have to exist. If there are special reasons, the principal of which will be the prevailing practice in a particular area, which makes it advisable to substitute some of these holidays by Church holidays, at certain times, then we are requiring the employer to give a month's notice to his employees of the substitution. This section will only be operated, in practice, to enable the custom prevailing in different districts to be reconciled to the provisions of this measure. In Wexford, and other parts of the country, the preference will be to observe the Church holidays; in Dublin and Cork, perhaps, the preference will be to observe the statutory holidays. It will be possible by this amendment to satisfy both areas at the same time, whereas under Deputy Norton's suggestion only one area would be satisfied, while another would be dissatisfied. This is a rehash of the debate on amendment No. 4, when the matter was fully gone into. I do not think it desirable that we should not have the elements of discretion exercisable by the employers, nor do I think that it should be non-exercisable unless the employer obtains agreement with his employees — whether agreement should be unanimous or not. I do not know. I think it is extremely unlikely that this power will ever be used except to bring this portion of the Bill into conformity with local practice. I do not think the employer would be so unwise as to effect a change without securing the consent of his employees first. I believe it will only be done where general opinion available in the locality is in favour of its being done.
There is nothing in this Bill which compels any man to work or any employer to keep his factory open on any holiday. If in Wexford it is desired to close down upon the ten holidays then, because there is a statutory obligation to comply with six of these holidays, there is nothing to compel them to keep their factories open for the other four. If trade unions and the exercise of public opinion have been able to get statutory holidays observed in the past they will be able to get them observed in the future with this addition that they can demand payment.
Does the Minister want to see a situation arise where an employer may decide that instead of having a well-known bank holiday observed he can adopt another, and, as the result of his action, he can create a situation where the workers have reason to complain and are not satisfied with the rearrangement made by the employer. All that will produce friction and discord. It is not easy, in order to avoid that difficulty, to provide by legislation that the workers should be consulted? There is nothing wrong in that. The workers' holidays are not the employers' holidays and they ought to be entitled to know that they will get the holidays they want. One would think the employer was providing for his own holidays.
We are providing to give longer holidays than I ever got.
You are enabling the employer to do what he likes with the workers' holidays, whether Church holidays or bank holidays. The employer ought not to be able to decide when the worker should get his holidays.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 92; Níl, 6.
Tá;
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Clery, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davis, Michael.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Finlay, John.
- Flinn, Hugo. V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Good, John.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keating, John.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Everett and Keyes.
Question declared carried.
Níil
|
Corish, Richard.Everett, James.Keyes, Michael.
|
Murphy, Timothy Joseph.Norton, William.Pattison, James P.
|
