Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 31 Oct 1935

Vol. 59 No. 2

Conditions of Employment Bill, 1935—Recommittal (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:—
In page 9, Section 19 (1), to delete all words from and including the word "employment" in line 37 to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "complete employment year of such worker during which he has been continuously in the employment of such employer and has worked in such employment not less than eighteen hundred hours."

I explained yesterday evening why it was desired to make this change in the Bill, and the improvement that it would effect in the definition of continuous employment. The only point that arose from the discussion was the advisability of having power to vary the number of hours in the year which would constitute continuous employment; the necessity for that variation arising possibly from the fact that the normal working week of particular classes of workers is now below 48 hours, or may in the future become below 48 hours. I agree that there should be power to vary the number of hours set out in the amendment, and I am considering the form of an amendment to that end which it would be necessary to introduce on the Report Stage, if we decide to do so. It is undesirable that the number of hours should be fixed in the Bill and be unchangeable, except by amending legislation, because the aim of the Bill is to effect generally a reduction in the working hours. That reduction could not be effected if it meant that the workers concerned could not qualify to receive the annual holidays. Therefore, while I think this method of determining continuous employment is the best, and that this amendment should be inserted, I will have consideration given to the advisability of producing on the Report Stage an amendment conferring power in some form to vary the number of hours in the year that will constitute continuous employment.

Am I to take it that while the Minister will take power in the Bill to vary the number of hours to qualify for holidays, nevertheless that he will keep the datum line at 1,800 hours?

I think so.

I put it that the datum line of 1,800 hours is something more than 75 per cent. of the full year's work on the basis of a 48-hour week. I suggest that the Minister should fix a datum line on 75 per cent. of the normal working period only on the basis of a 44-hour week, and not on the basis of a 48-hour week. The Minister knows that in a very large number of occupations the working week is in the vicinity of 44 hours, and that the tendency of this Bill will be probably to reduce the working week to 44 hours. If the Minister will take 44 hours as the figure upon which he ought to base the datum line, I think he will produce a figure based on 75 per cent. of the normal number of working hours in a year, which would meet the point Deputy Keyes has in mind and, at the same time, represent a greater approximation to fairness than 1,800 hours does in these circumstances. The Minister is not giving very much away, but he certainly will meet the point raised by Deputy Keyes, and which deserves to be met. At the same time, he will have the power which he seeks to make the variations, and probably any variations made by the Minister at an early date will bring the Bill into line with the 1,700 hour average over a period of one year.

Whatever number appears in the Bill must be related to the 48 hours, which is the working week prescribed as the maximum in the Bill, and I do not think that 1,800 hours in a year is an unreasonable proportion in relation to a 48-hour week. But if in any particular trade it is now the practice, or if in future it should become the law that a shorter working week would operate, then this has to be revised, not necessarily revised proportionately, but downwards to some extent, because otherwise you might have a position in which a large number of workers, because of the reduction in the working week, would be unable to qualify for the annual holidays; in fact, it would in certain circumstances become illegal to qualify for the annual holidays. In these circumstances, I agree that this number should be varied, but in so far as the maximum working week prescribed in the Bill is 48 hours, I think 1,800 hours in the year is a reasonable figure to put in the Bill. I do not think it is unduly high in relation to a 48-hour week, but I agree that it should be capable of being reduced when the working week is shorter.

Taking the particular case I cited last evening, where men work three-quarters or 75 per cent. of the available time in the way of days —they work four days out of six, and they are cut off for two days; and as they have been working like that for a period of over five years it has come to be recognised as a fairly established practice—would it not be equitable to fix the number of hours at 75 per cent. of the available work provided? In this case it is a 47-hour week over six days, and they work four days, making 34 hours in all. That gives them a total of 1,768 hours, which would bring them under the 1,800 hours, which would be definitely putting them outside the intention of the Bill. Would it not be feasible to prescribe for three-quarters of the days of the week or 75 per cent. of the days available, or alternatively 1,800 hours or 1,700 hours or 1,600 hours, which will be 75 per cent. of the working week? In that way you will meet the cases where half-time or three-quarter time has been put into operation in various industries. It will definitely cover the point which I raised which deals with a very hard case.

Does the Minister's amendment cover the type of work to which Deputy Keyes refers? Deputy Keyes speaks of a man who works four days in the week and is laid off for two days; then works four days in the next week and is laid off for two days. The terms of the amendment are "during which he has been continuously in the employment of such employer." Surely a workman who is only working four days in the week and is laid off for two days cannot be held to be in continuous employment? I remember at an early stage we discussed that at some length, and I know that in connection with the Galway Harbour Bill that question arose, and it was held that a man so employed would not come within the terms of the Bill, which described a workman as being continuously employed.

I would be amazed if the Minister took that reading of it. I spoke of servants of the railway company who in some instances have worked for 40 years. They are at the disposal of the railway company on Friday and Saturday just as they are on the other days of the week. If that is not continuous employment, just because the company sees fit only to give them four days' work in the week, I do not know what it is.

I am not arguing one way or the other. I am directing the attention of the Minister to something that might pass by unobserved. I am giving the House the benefit of the experience I had when on the Committee of the Galway Harbour Bill when that question arose, and the best legal opinion before us informed us that a person working in that way would not be deemed to be in continuous employment. I am drawing the attention of the Minister and interested Deputies to the fact, so that if it has to be altered it may be altered now and not pass into the Bill and require another Bill to set it right.

I think there is no doubt that the workers to whom Deputy Keyes refers are continuously employed by the same employer even though they may be doing a 37- or 38-hour week at present. I agree with Deputy Keyes that there should be power to prescribe a lower number of hours in the year to deal with the difficulties of certain cases. I object to taking the particular type of case which he has in mind as typical, as it is rather an abnormal type of case. A typical case is where the worker does a full working week which is nevertheless less than 40 hours.

It is not unique.

I am not saying it is unique, but it is not the type of case on which I should like to build legislation. Legislation should be built up against normal conditions. There should be power to prescribe variations in the number of hours per year in order to deal with cases where the working week of a person continuously employed is less than the maximum prescribed by the Bill. I am considering what amendment would be necessary in order to have power so to prescribe. I do not think we should alter the maximum in the Bill, but merely take power to reduce the maximum wherever the circumstances seem to justify a reduction of it.

Will the Minister endeavour in his amendment to consider the case submitted by Deputy Keyes, not because of the particular circumstances advanced in this case, but because of the desirability of meeting a general problem such as that which may be presented in the future?

I might be prepared to meet the particular case, but the Deputy will appreciate that there will be many cases of all kinds similar to that mentioned by Deputy Keyes, where, however, it may be that there was not continuous employment. We have to walk warily and make sure that we are not defeating the purpose of other sections of the Bill, which prescribe that in lieu of holidays certain payments are to be made where the continuity of the employment is broken. A worker who does four or four-and-a-half days every week is undoubtedly continuously employed, but workers in industries similarly situated might do one month out of two months, or two months out of three, and they would be in a somewhat different position and should be dealt with in a different way. In so far as there is no doubt that the workers are continuously employed in the same occupation by the same employer, I think they should be met in the way I suggest by a reduction of this maximum.

The point as to what is continuous employment is a very important one. It is possible, as Deputy Dillon has mentioned, that it may be held that, if a normal working week is spread over six days, and a person works four days this week and does not work on the two following normal working days, he is not in continuous employment.

It is because that interpretation might be put upon the Bill that we are introducing the amendment.

The Minister in his amendment No. 44 moves "to delete all words from and including the word `employment' in line 37 to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words `complete employment year of such worker during which he has been continuously in the employment of such employer and has worked in such employment not less than 1,800 hours." It might be held that a person who in fact worked 1,800 hours would be required to prove two things. That he was in continuous employment and in the continuous employment of the one employer.

"Continuously employed" is not in the amendment.

I want assistance in this matter, Sir, with regard to the word "continuously."

Continuously in the employment of the same employer is an entirely different thing from being continuously employed.

It is not a function of the Chair to interpret Bills. The Deputy must be guided by the Minister.

The words of the Minister's amendment are as follows: "complete employment year of such worker during which he has been continuously in the employment of such employer."

Yes, "of such employer."

"Of such employer," yes, but that does not matter very much. What does matter is that the worker will be required to prove that he has been continuously in employment, and, as Deputy Dillon says, it may be subsequently decided that a person who works four days a week for and then does two days a week for another employer is not in continuous employment.

Is there any need for the word "continuous" at all?

In view of the fact that 1,800 hours are provided for, the word "continuous" is necessary.

Yes, I understand. The worker must be continuously employed by the same employer. His work must not be interrupted by working for another employer. Supposing a man had been working for four days a week for one employer, and that he did a day's work for another employer in the same week, would that be included?

It might be. Deputy Norton is continuously misreading the amendment. The words "continuous employment" are not there, and the meaning is that the worker remains in the one employment without interruption.

If the Minister says that he is legally advised to that effect, I am prepared to agree.

My view is the commonsense view.

The Minister's common sense is often astray. I think that the Minister should not give himself these certificates of common sense at all.

I do not need to.

Yes, because it is not appropriate. Deputy Dillon comes into the House and says that the same point arose on a previous occasion before a Committee of the House, and that that viewpoint was put to counsel.

I do not think Deputy Dillon said that. If he did, he is wrong.

I should like to say that there is a fine distinction between the words used here and the words used in the other case. These are not the same words that were used in connection with the Galway Harbour Bill. In addition, there is the point raised by Deputy MacDermot that a man working four days of the week might take a day's work from a friend and by so doing might destroy his right to holidays.

But, in order to show that, he would want to prove that he was in continuous employment.

During the employment year.

But the worker has to satisfy two conditions: (1) that he has been continuously in the employment of the employer, and (2) that he has worked in such employment for not less than 1,800 hours. The employer might argue, however, that, by reason of the fact that the worker only worked four days in the week for him, he should not be liable for those other two days. Is not that a real danger that ought to be met?

I hold that there is a very real danger there which ought to be met by the Minister, by defining what continuous employment means. I think that constant employment would be better, because there can be regularity in employment even if it is only one day or a half a day per week. A person might only work one day of the week, but would be constantly employed for that one day or two days, or even a half a day per week; but the word "continuously" has a much more serious significance than "constantly" or "regularly" employed. I suggest to the Minister that there is a very real difficulty there which ought to be met. I suggest that it ought to be met by eliminating the word "continuously," and substituting the word "regularly," or that it should be made clear that the 1,800 hours' work must be with the same employer.

That is already there.

It is something different from what the Deputy requires. The Deputy wants something different from what the worker wants even when the employer is agreeable.

But I want to ensure that the employer otherwise fulfils his obligation.

That is what the amendment does, and it is what it is designed to do, and what, in fact, it does.

Would the Minister tell us whether or not there is some legal opinion to back up what is meant by "continuous employment"? Is there any legal opinion behind this amendment?

Obviously.

I think the Minister is optimistic. It is conceivable that there might be a difference of opinion between what is meant by being continuously in the employment of one person and being continuously employed.

Would the Minister look into this?

It seems to me that the meaning is quite obvious. We propose that a worker becomes entitled to, and must receive, six consecutive days' leave in every employment year; that is, provided he has been continuously in the employment of the particular employer and has worked 1,800 hours, which is substantially less than one year; that is because of the employment having been interrupted—as employment is frequently interrupted —and which interruption did not terminate the contract between the employer and the employee, which would terminate his employment.

But ten words would clarify what is meant there, and I hold that it ought to be clearly shown what is meant by "continuous employment."

I put this case to the Minister, and I believe that, if he makes inquiries, he will find that there is some ground for finding out that it happens in his own constituency.

I know that the Minister can get information from people working in the Inchicore Works. At present there is a limited number of people in Dublin employed at work who only get four days a week. These people are free on the other two days, and they are quite entitled to do carpentering or any other work on these two days for other employers, and since house-building started here in Dublin they do it. Are they going to be prejudiced by the insertion of this word "continuously" in the amendment?

If they are not continuously employed by one employer they are not entitled to six days' annual leave. Under another section they are entitled to something in lieu of it.

I ask the Minister if he would consider qualifying the word "continuously" in some way; if he would say "continuously in the employment or available" to the employer. I say that because the men I speak of are available to the employer but he does not require their services. You could obviate whatever dangerous meaning might be attached to the word "continuously" by saying "or available."

So long as the contract of service is not broken, the workman continues to be employed by that employer. One can visualise the position of an engineer who works Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, week in and week out, and the case of a man to whom the employer says "I will want you next Monday," and at the end of the week says "I will want you again next Monday." That is not continuous employment. That man may do spells of work, but that does not mean that he is continuously in the employment of the employer. A man doing a 40 hours' week may work six days or five days a week. So far as he is concerned it may be a five-day or a six-day week. The mere fact that he does not work a six-day week does not mean that he is not continuously employed. The men that Deputy Keyes has in mind are in that position.

Would the Minister substitute "regularly" for "continuously"?

I do not think it would be an improvement, and the section would not be as clear as it is.

If a man had a regular contract of employment four days a week and spent the remaining two days of the week in the employment of another employer, would he be disqualified under this amendment for his claim for six days' holidays?

It is clearly the Minister's intention not to provide for the case of the man who refuses to sit at home idly on the two days on which he is not employed.

If he is a casual worker, working casually in the manner the Deputy suggests, he does not come under this section.

We appear to be unanimous on one point, but we differ as to how this is to be got over. The question before us is to find words to fit this case. I understand from what the Minister has said that if John Smith contracts with an employer to work on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and is offered or accepts work from another employer on the other days, he is entitled to six days' holidays every year if he works 1,800 hours in the course of the year?

I would not say so.

But the man is in constant employment, and the Minister has spent half an hour proving to us that if the man works for the employer regularly and spends 1,800 hours working for him he is entitled to the holiday.

Very well. Surely it should not be the intention of the Minister to put a premium on idleness. Surely the Minister would like to see the man who gets four days work per week looking for two days additional from someone else. Our objection to the Minister's amendment is that it will prohibit the man who gets four days employment per week from looking for two days work from another employer, because if he does he will lose the benefit of the six days holidays. Perhaps if another word were used it might be possible that the purpose we all have in mind will be served. I appreciate that it is impossible for the Minister to strike out one word and stick in another without consultation. If the Minister says he will look into it, and that he will take such steps as are necessary, perhaps that would be satisfactory.

The worker who is not continuously in the same employment is not entitled to come under the section. The Deputy talks about a man working four days with one employer and two days with another. That man is precisely in the same position as the man who works two months with one employer and one month with another. He comes under another section.

The Minister's position is that if the man remains idle for the two other days——

It may be illegal for him to work for another employer.

That does not arise for the moment but suppose he does remain idle he will get these six holidays. If the man looks for two days' employment additional to complete the week he is to be penalised. That is manifestly unjust and no Deputy could stand for such an arrangement. I urge the Minister very strongly to consider that and to say that the man who seeks work for the other two days will not be put in a worse position.

What I said was that the case made by Deputy Keyes was one for which legislation could not be framed. A worker might have the normal working week reduced from 48 hours to a lower number of hours and working more than that number might be an offence.

The Minister knows that is quite irrelevant.

The Minister is ignoring the point that was raised earlier, namely, what is continuous employment. What is the definition of "have been continuously in the employment of such employer"? I say there is a danger that that may mean that the person must be able to show that he has been working regularly for the normal working week for that employer and that if he cannot show that it may be held that he is not continuously in the employment of such employer even where he is working a 46-hour week for that employer and has rendered him 1,800 hours work during the year. We think that in such case the man ought to get his annual leave.

The Minister also says, I think, that he ought to get his annual leave. The difference between us is that the Minister sees no seriousness in the words "continuously in the employment of such employer", but it may well be held by the courts that "continuously in the employment of such employer" means that the man is working regularly for a fixed number of days or a fixed number of hours each week. The courts may hold that it did not matter how many hours he worked so long as he put in a normal working week. But the courts may also hold that if he was out of employment for one day or two days a week that did not constitute being "continuously employed for such employer." I suggest to the Minister that he ought to define what the word "continuously" means. If he does it will avoid a good deal of hardship and confusion later, and I suggest to the Minister that he ought not to be so stubborn about the matter.

The word "continuously" is defined in the section, and it is because continuously had to be defined that the amendment is produced. If the word "continuously" could be defined as simply as the Deputy suggests, then the amendment would not be required at all. "Continuously in the employment of such employer" means that a man has been employed for not less than 1,800 hours.

Why does not the amendment say that?

It does.

That a person has been "continuously in the employment of such employer and has worked in such employment for not less than eighteen hundred hours" does not clearly say that "continuously in the employment of such employer" means a person who has worked for such employer for 1,800 hours.

It obviously means that a year's work need only be 1,800 hours.

Where is the difficulty then in saying what you mean?

We have said it.

The amendment says the very reverse and emphasises the fact that it does not mean that, because it provides two conditions which must be fulfilled by the worker. The first is that he has been "continuously in the employment of such employer", and the second is that he has worked in such employment "for not less than eighteen hundred hours." The courts must hold that, whatever be the several meanings of these two conditions, one thing is certain, and that is that their meanings cannot be identical and that one cannot be a definition of the other because the Bill provides that both must be present. Therefore, the position will be that a man must have not only the one qualification but the other as well. It means that there is a difference between the two.

Has it struck the Deputy at all that the meaning must obviously be different to that, and that continuous employment for 48 hours must obviously be higher than 1,800 hours over a year?

Does the Minister conceive it possible that a person could fulfil one of these conditions and not fulfil the other?

Of course it is possible. A person could be employed for 1,800 hours and not be "continuously in the employment of such employer."

If a person works 1,800 hours and is employed by a particular employer for four days a week, should he not get the six days' holidays?

What is in the amendment to say that he will not?

The danger created by this word "continuously." He may be deemed not to be continuously in the employment of such employer, because he does not work on the two remaining days in the week.

I suggest that we will get nowhere by wrangling about this in the House. It seems to me to be a question on which the Minister should undertake to get legal opinion.

I have got more legal opinions on that particular point than are available in the House at the moment.

I think this question has been debated altogether from a false angle. The Minister is making provision for workers to be paid for a six days' holiday. In order that broken time, illness and so on, will not interfere with the giving of that holiday, he has introduced this reduction of hours. That is done in order to ensure that a reasonable interpretation may be given to the employment period. There is the other side of the picture that has not been touched upon. I am one of those who give a certain amount of casual employment, and I would like to see that casual employment protected in this connection. Deputy Norton spoke of the employer who employs a man for three days a week. The man gets employment from other people for the remaining three days. Surely, the employer who gives employment to the man for the first three days should not be asked to shoulder the full burden of the holiday payment. If an employer employs a man to the extent of 1,800 hours a year, the Minister holds that it is reasonable that he should be responsible for the holiday payment. But, supposing the man worked a total of 2,400 hours in the year, I submit that it is reasonable to expect that the person employing him for the 600 hours —the balance over the 1,800 hours— should bear a share of the holiday payment. I think that, in order to do justice to all parties, something should be done to meet that particular situation; that in a case such as I have mentioned, there should be a sharing of the cost.

I have already suggested to the Minister that if a man is continuously employed and is available, or at the disposal of his employer for a full week, then that employer ought to have responsibility placed upon him of providing the worker with a holiday. The last speaker dealt with the case of a man who worked a certain period with one employer and another period with a second employer. I am dealing with the case of men who, because of the action of their employers, are only allowed to work four days a week. That is their regular week, and in their case that has been the practice for ten years. The Minister should take notice of that. As a result of that practice, their minimum working hours will fall short of the minimum set down in the Bill. It would certainly be a hardship on them to be deprived of the benefit of the holiday, while it would be no hardship on their employers to be obliged to give them the holiday. Since this question of the meaning of "continuously employed" has been raised, I suggest to the Minister that he should do something to meet the case of those men who are available to their employer. I am not suggesting that they ought to have liberty to go out and undertake work for other people on the two days of the week that they are not required by their present employers, because I am not in favour of putting men on three-quarter time in competition with those who can find no work at all. These men are available to, and are at the disposal of, their employers if they are required by them on the two days a week that they are not engaged at present, and therefore, I think, the full responsibility for their holiday payment should be put on their employers.

Might I call the Minister's attention to the fact that in amendment No. 45 which he has submitted there is no question of a person being continuously in employment for a period of two months? "Continuously" is omitted from amendment No. 45, and the amendment has as much sense as amendment No. 44 and seems to operate more equitably. What is the necessity for "continuously" in amendment No. 44 when it is not in amendment No. 45? If he can drop it in amendment No. 45 he can drop it in amendment No. 44.

There is one other aspect of amendment No. 44 upon which I should like some information from the Minister. Under amendment No. 45 the employer pays the worker a day's pay on his employment ceasing with him for more than a day's pay according to the scale. Under amendment No. 44 the much-debated year is under discussion and I am wondering if there will not be a tendency, where the holiday may have been overlooked or interfered with, to pay a worker a week's pay in lieu of the annual six days' leave. Is it illegal for the employer to do that or for the worker to accept it?

It is illegal.

Under what section is it illegal?

Under this particular Section 19, which we are discussing.

The amendment has had a very fair discussion, and perhaps the Minister will look into it.

I shall look into any matter the Deputy raises, but the Deputy is setting himself up to interpret words in a manner in which, obviously, they are not capable of being interpreted.

More than I have done that.

We discussed this particular point in Committee. The question was raised in Committee of what was "continuous employment," and in order to meet the point I brought forward this amendment.

Would it not satisfy Deputies if the Minister promised to meet this on the Report Stage?

That meets the whole case.

Is amendment No. 44 agreed to?

Before we agree, can the Minister amend his own amendment on the next Stage?

Certainly.

Although we have adopted this, he can amend further on the Report Stage what we have adopted?

If the House consents.

I did not know that the Minister could move to reverse a decision of the House in that way.

The Minister may.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 45:—

45. In page 9, before Section 19 (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(2) Where a worker employed by an employer in an industrial undertaking ceases, at any time other than the end of an employment year of such worker, to be in the employment of such employer, such employer shall either:—

(a) allow such worker, before such cesser, six days annual leave in respect of the portion of such employment year during which he was so employed, or

(b) pay such worker, at such cesser—

(i) one day's pay (calculated at the rate which would be applicable if such day were a day of annual leave allowed immediately before such cesser) in respect of every complete period of two months in the said portion of such employment year during which he has worked not less than three hundred hours, and

(ii) one day's pay (calculated as aforesaid) in respect of the period (if any) in the said portion of such employment year which is less than two months but not less than one month and during which he has worked for not less than one hundred and fifty hours."

Amendment No. 45 brings the same principles into the calculation of the shorter period in respect to which pay in lieu of holidays is allowed.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I move amendment No. 46:—

In page 9, to delete Section 19 (3), and substitute four new sub-sections as follows:—

"(3) Where a worker who is a member of the Reserve Force of the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann is absent from his employment for the purpose of attending and performing his duty as such member at any initial training, annual training, or test mobilisation, such worker shall, for the purpose of reckoning any period of employment or of continuous employment within the meaning of this section, be deemed to have been in his said employment during his said absence, and accordingly the period of his said absence shall for the purposes of this section be reckoned in the said period of employment or continuous employment.

(4) Where the ownership of an industrial undertaking is transferred by act of the parties or operation of law, a worker who is employed in such undertaking immediately before and immediately after such transfer shall be entitled to reckon, for the purposes of this section, the period of his continuous employment in such undertaking beginning before and ending at such transfer and the period of such continuous employment beginning at and continuing after such transfer as one uninterrupted period of continuous employment in such undertaking notwithstanding such transfer.

(5) This section shall apply to the employment year current at the commencement of this Act of every worker who, at such passing, is in the employment of an employer in an industrial undertaking, and this section shall have effect in respect of such employment year and such worker as if this section had been in force at the beginning of such employment year, but subject to the modification that, if such employment year expires within one month after the commencement of this Act, such employer shall be deemed to have complied with this section if he allows to such worker, not later than three months after the expiration of such employment year, such annual leave as such worker may be entitled to under this section in respect of such employment year.

(6) In this section and the two next following sections of this Act the expression `employment year' in relation to any worker means a period of one year beginning on the day on which such worker last entered the employment in relation to which the expression is used or on an anniversary of that day."

Amendment No. 46 does a number of things. In the first place it deletes sub-section 3 of section 19. That is consequential on the adoption of amendment No. 45. In the second place it provides that where a worker is a member of the Reserve Force of the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann and is called up for any period of initial training, annual training or a test mobilisation, and is consequently absent from his employment during such period of initial training, annual training or test mobilisation, he shall, nevertheless, be deemed to have been continuously employed for the purposes of this section, that is, for the purpose of qualifying for the annual leave. We think it is undesirable that workers who are members of the Reserve Force should be penalised on that account, or put in a less advantageous position than their fellows in the matter of qualifying for the annual holidays.

In the next sub-section the amendment provides that the continuity of a worker's employment will not be interrupted merely because the ownership of the business in which he is employed is transferred by act of the parties or the operation of law from one person to another, provided the worker has been employed in the concern both before and after the transfer. The next sub-section provides for the transition stage, the period that will immediately follow the coming into operation of this section and is designed to prevent any serious dislocation arising in industry, if a large number of workers should become qualified and entitled to receive their annual leave in the same week. The necessity for having some such provision, that is, a provision for the spreading of the holiday season over a particular period by employers so as to prevent dislocation will, I think, be obvious. Sub-section (6) is merely a re-insertion of the definition of the "employment year" which we deleted from an earlier part of the Bill.

I do not know how the Minister deletes sub-section (3) in the Bill and substitutes this amendment, because it seems to me that the sub-section dealt with another question entirely.

Sub-section (3) is being deleted because a new sub-section has been inserted by a previous amendment.

And amendment No. 45, which did effect in other circumstances what amendment No. 44 did in its particular place, has taken the place of paragraphs (a) and (b) of the old Bill?

This is completely new stuff that is going in?

I have no objection to Clause 3 of this amendment except in regard to its uncertainty. In all this question of holidays so far provided for in the Bill, it is possible to calculate what will be the expense beforehand and to make provision therefor, but this sub-section (3), which provides for time spent on service in defence forces such as a test mobilisation or initial training, gives no indication as to what period will be taken up, and therefore does not afford the contractor or the firm concerned an opportunity of calculating what expense will be incurred. I think some limit should be put on this, so that a definite calculation can be made. Conceivably to the layman it might mean a week, a month, or two months. Could the Minister give us any indication of the period which it is intended to cover by this clause? It is quite a new feature in the Bill.

The period of initial training or annual training is very short, and the period of a test mobilisation will be only a matter of two or three days. I am not sure what the exact period is, but it will not go beyond two or three weeks. It is never longer than that. A member of the Reserve Forces might be called to service in circumstances which would require a longer absence from his work than is mentioned here, but that absence would not count for the purposes of this Bill. I think the Deputy will obviously see the desirability of having this provision here, because otherwise there would be a very strong reason why workers should not become members of the Reserve Forces.

I stated I had no objection to it except its uncertainty.

The element of uncertainty is very slight. If any contractor were calculating the cost of certain work that might take a long time to execute, the amount he would have to allow against this item would obviously be very small, because such worker would qualify for the annual leave in any event if he were continuously employed on the job for a long period; he would succeed in securing the 1,800 hours' qualification without the necessity of availing of this provision. It is only in certain cases that it might happen that the worker's absence with the Reserve Forces might disqualify him from annual leave, and that is a hardship I am anxious to avoid. The total amount which a member of the Reserve Forces does is one month's training annually.

The Minister has made a new calculation. The original calculation has been revised by the amendment. Now the calculation will be varied again by the period of one month, if I have heard the Minister correctly. I am not sure if he said a month.

Yes, a month.

That is at least four weeks at 48 hours. It reduces it again to the region of 1,600 hours.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 47:—

In page 10, before Section 19 (5), to insert the following new sub-section:—

"(5) A worker while on his annual leave shall not perform work for remuneration in the service of the employer of such worker or in any other employment whatever. Every person who acts contrary to the provisions of this sub-section shall be guilty of an offence under this section."

This is an amendment which we discussed on the Committee Stage and the Minister then undertook to look into the matter with a view of accepting the amendment either in the form submitted or in some other form. When the matter was discussed on the Committee Stage there was a general opinion expressed that, so far as the Act could ensure, every effort should be made to prevent workers taking up other employment during the period of their annual holidays.

The Deputy should read the speeches of his colleagues. This proposal is put forward, in the first place, in order that the workers would have an opportunity of recuperating on their holidays and enjoying them and, secondly, to create, if possible, a source of employment for those normally unemployed. On the 28th June (Parliamentary Debates, col. 1325) the Minister said: "I think we shall have to make some provision to ensure that workers on a week's holidays, during which they are paid. will not be free to take employment in the manner described by Deputy Dockrell." The Minister's statement is a clear indication that he is favourable to the idea of preventing workers working during the period of their holidays. I hope he will accept this amendment, or at least the principle of it.

The matter was, as the Deputy said, discussed at length on the Committee Stage, and I think we had a division on a somewhat similar amendment. There are many objections to this. While it is desirable that workers who get annual leave under this measure should not work during that period of leave, it is very difficult to impose that as a statutory obligation on them. A worker cannot work during that period in the service of his employer, but he might decide to do harvesting work or some other class of work which would mean a change of occupation and would be as good as a rest for him. It would be practically impossible to enforce any such provision and I do not think we should have in the Bill provisions of this kind unless we can see our way to make them effective. I cannot see how we could effectively enforce a provision which debars workers on annual leave from taking employment which might be taken by them in different parts of the country far away from the district in which they were ordinarily employed.

I strenuously object to the principle enshrined in Deputy Norton's amendment. I think it is typical of the Socialist mind that loves to dragoon everybody. It may be necessary to have certain regulations in industry to preserve the rights of people and to keep an even keel between employer and employed, but the less we have of them the better. I strenuously object to pursuing a man outside his employment because he happens to work for wages; I protest against any attempt to dragoon him in his free time.

Perhaps the Deputy did not hear Deputy Dockrell's speech.

Deputy Dockrell is entitled to hold his own views. It does not follow that he should subscribe to my views or that I should subscribe to his. Workmen are entitled to as much liberty as their employers. I have no doubt if an attempt were made by the Government to prevent an employer pursuing any hobby he chose to pursue there would be a general outcry. If that is so of employers I strenuously object to this House attempting to restrict the liberty of employees. It is typical of the Socialist mind of Deputy Norton that he should want, not only to provide against abuses in industry, but to dragoon and discipline every citizen of the State in his working hours, out of his working hours, and every time he can get his claw on him.

How about the Corporate State?

It is perhaps useful that the followers of Deputy Norton should get some inkling of what Socialism means, and what the principles he espouses would be likely to involve us in.

Deputy Dockrell is a Socialist after this.

The amendment is directed to preventing a worker, while on annual leave, performing work for remuneration in the service of his employer. I understood the Minister to say that the Bill provides that he cannot, if he is entitled to a week's holiday from an employer who has employed him during the whole working year, work during that holiday for that employer. In so far as the amendment is directed to that purpose, it is superfluous, mere tautology, because that is already in the Bill. But, surely, he can take harvest work or casual work with some other employer if he so desires.

It is desirable to prevent them doing so, but my trouble is to enforce such a provision.

That is quite a different thing. It is one thing to advise workers not to do it; it is quite another thing to put the Socialist claw on the backs of their necks and forbid them to do it. I feel sure the Chair would not desire us to enter into a discussion at this stage as to the Fascist or Hitlerite tendencies of President de Valera, or his colleagues—we shall reserve that for another day—but in the meantime let us rejoice that the Socialist tendencies of Deputy Norton negative the Hitlerite tendencies of President de Valera and, in the middle, liberty is preserved for the workman, who can enjoy his holidays.

I rise to support Deputy Norton's amendment.

Another Socialist.

There seems to be some idea in Deputy Dillon's mind that this is a Socialistic idea and that the State, or somebody else, is fastening its claws on a man's neck during his free time. That is where we join issue, because the man is having a free holiday at the expense of his employer and he is supposed to be having it for the benefit of his health. I quite agree that there may be a wide range of ideas as to how a person should take a holiday, and I agree that there should be considerable latitude. I should find it difficult to say that a man who is employed in Dublin and who goes down to the West of Ireland and engages in harvesting operations is undermining his health. I see by the Minister's attitude that he is sympathetic towards the idea, if he could get some words to express what is in the mind of Deputy Norton and others. My definition of it would be "analogous employment," because I think it would be a most flagrant injustice if, during a very busy period in the building industry, let us say, an employer has to give a worker a week's holidays and see that worker working for a rival employer.

We had a good deal of talk in a previous debate as to whether a man could mend a clock in his leisure time, but I believe the Minister, if he put his mind to it, could find some way of expressing what I believe would be best expressed by the term "analogous employment." I do not at all agree with the Minister that, because he cannot catch somebody who is doing something he ought not to do, it should not be prohibited. I would far rather maintain our high ideals, even though it were not possible to detect very much of the abuse which we knew was going on.

There are many sections in this Bill that will be extremely difficult to administer, and there are many offences created in the Bill that will be extremely difficult to detect. For instance, one portion of the Bill says that if a worker, after having worked for one employer, accepts employment with another during his holiday period, it is an offence, and if the other employer employs him, it is also an offence. One can easily see the enormous difficulty of detecting offences of this kind, but the House has decided that it is an offence and that, as far as the Bill is concerned, every effort should be made to detect the offence.

There is no difference at all between the principle in that case and the principle in this. I agree that there are difficulties in this case, but I think we should endeavour, so far as legislation is concerned, to get as much grip over the offence as possible; otherwise, we are calmly contemplating a worker who has been given holidays for the benefit of his own health entering into undesirable competition, either with his unemployed colleagues or with some other persons in some other industry. Bear in mind that the worker is not unemployed during that week. He actually has a week's wages for that week, and ought to be content with that. If they are not enough, there is another method of getting more wages, but he ought not to be allowed to say "I am getting a week's wages for my holidays this week, and I am going to try to get some work either at my own industry or at some other craft," to the possible detriment of another worker normally following that craft or engaged in that industry.

I think this is a very simple proposition. I agree that you cannot make the offences punishable in all cases, but even 10 per cent. efficiency is better than no efficiency at all, and there might be respect for this amendment from the point of view of preventing the offences occurring if there was a section such as this in the Bill. Deputy Dillon, with his typical bogeyman mind, sees red ruin and revolution in this amendment. It is a Socialist amendment, he says; it is reeking with Socialism and reeking with regimentation. And all that from a Deputy who is a member of a Party that wanted to regiment everybody, to make them join trade unions, whether they liked it or not, to make them pay contributions to trade unions, whether they liked it or not, and to prohibit their normal right to withdraw their labour if they liked. This is the Deputy who now objects to regimentation—the Deputy who a short time ago was giving his benediction to a policy which not alone made the ordinary employee at, say, the Bank of Ireland come into a trade union, but made the Governor of the Bank of Ireland come into the same union with the employees.

What about the amendment, Deputy?

I am coming to the amendment. As a matter of fact, I am discussing the amendment now by pointing out to Deputy Dillon that there is no real regimentation in this amendment at all. It is quite a sensible amendment, and if that is Deputy Dillon's conception of Socialism, the Deputy has still a lot to learn. Even Deputy Dockrell embraces this amendment. He says it is a sensible amendment, and I suppose Deputy Dockrell talks for the Party in this matter. Probably he is longer in it than Deputy Dillon and knows more about the policy of the Party. Deputy Dockrell does not see any Socialism in this. He says it is a sensible amendment, and it is an amendment which Deputy Dillon, I should imagine, if he had any pretence to being logical or equitable, ought to have gladly accepted.

This amendment has been supported by other Deputies of the Fine Gael Party in addition to Deputy Dockrell. It is an eminently reasonable amendment. It may not be 100 per cent. efficient, but a substantial measure of efficiency can be got under it, and I think that if even only 10 per cent. efficiency can be got, it is very much better than leaving this matter unprovided for and in such a way as to allow workers, who are being paid a week's wages for a week's holidays, to enter into competition with other workers who are unemployed or find it difficult enough to get employment in their industry or at their craft. Even if the Minister cannot make the thing wholly effective, I suggest that he ought, as a deterrent or even as something that will get a certain measure of efficiency in detection, agree to accept the principle of the amendment.

Would the Deputy be satisfied with an amendment to prevent a worker working in the same form of industrial work? The phrase "or in any other employment whatever" is much too wide.

If the Minister will agree to accept an amendment as wide as it would be reasonably practicable to administer it, I will agreeable.

I will agree with Deputy Dockrell that there is a case for preventing certain classes of workers in particular from using their forced annual leave to do work. Take the case of the aristocrats of the trade at the moment—the plasterers, who are in demand, I understand, by all contractors. A plasterer who got annual leave might well be induced by another contractor to do work for him during that period, and it would be unfair to the first employer who has to pay him for his period of leave. I should not like to prevent a plasterer from taking on a job at fruit picking or harvesting or, even in certain circumstances, working in various occupations associated with or similar to his ordinary work.

Assuming that there is not somebody else to do the job.

We cannot prevent that altogether. We have no means test in respect of employment and I do not think it would be possible to get that without regimentation of a ruthless kind. There are people doing jobs who are in receipt of pensions which bring them in much more than this worker might be getting during his leave. There is nothing to prevent them getting a job, even though there may be other people more in need of the work. That is not the principle on which we ought to go. The principle is that a worker, having been in employment for a year doing a certain form of industrial work and being given by law six days annual holiday from that work, should take that holiday, because otherwise the whole purpose of the scheme might be defeated. I think that the great majority of workers will take the holiday but there may develop a practice in relation to the different trades which it may be desirable to check. My difficulty has been the practical one of devising a workable scheme, not objection to the principle. Now that I have heard Deputy Dillon on the principle, I am very anxious to find a workable scheme, and I should like to have another opportunity of considering the matter.

Surely we should be told by Deputy Norton, since he attaches so much importance to this amendment, what he considers will be the percentage of workers who will seek alternative work during the six days holiday they will be allowed. How many workers does he think will walk out of an engineering job and seek another engineering job elsewhere? Surely, he agrees that the overwhelming majority of workers will make straight for the hills and bogs and harvest fields rather than that they will start and search for another establishment similar to that in which they were employed so that they may work for the six free days. It is obvious that Deputy Norton attaches great importance to this amendment. But is it worth while, if he is satisfied that the efficiency will be only 10 per cent. and that it will cover only 1 per cent., 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. of workers, to insist upon the amendment? Would it be worth while passing a law merely to secure that? In many cases, even the analogous-occupation proposal will be impossible to administer. If a painter goes down the country and some of his friends want a painting job done, he may take it rather than be idle, particularly if it be wet weather. You will then have his neighbours reporting him for what could not be considered a very serious offence. The amount of unemployment that will arise from workers availing of their holidays to engage in other work cannot be considerable. I rather think the matter is too petty to legislate upon, especially in view of the suggestion that there is not likely to be anything like substantial compliance with the law, no matter what amendment is passed.

I take it that Deputy Moore is aware that there is a pretty serious evil already, with which Deputy Dockrell and Deputy Beckett are, no doubt, familiar, in respect of certain workers in the building trade and electrical trade working for an employer during the day and taking on other jobs at night.

I am entirely against that.

The Deputy admits that there are workers in employment during the day who take on private contracts at night while the industry in which they are engaged is carrying a substantial percentage of unemployed. Deputy Moore knows that there is a substantial amount of unemployment in the building industry at the moment and the tendency in existing circumstances in the city will be, I think, for that unemployment to increase. If you can get workers to work a normal day for an employer and do some other work at night, is there not a great danger that, during the holiday period, they will take contracts which should go to others and compete with their unemployed brethren? That problem has to be met.

If the Deputy is willing to hold over the amendment, I shall look into it again. I am not definitely promising to produce an amendment but I shall consider the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 48:—

In page 10, at the end of Section 19 (5) to add the words "and shall be liable to pay to such worker in respect of the period of the annual leave a sum equal to double the amount of the salary, wages or other reward earned by such worker in respect of the period aforesaid."

The Bill provides that a worker shall be entitled to obtain a week's annual leave. If the employer is unwilling to give it to him, then he is empowered to proceed at law for the recovery of the wages. That may involve him in a considerable amount of trouble and he may be a long time waiting for his week's pay for the holidays to which he is entitled. The object of this amendment is to provide that if an employer puts a worker to the trouble and expense of suing for his pay at law, not only will the employer be guilty of an offence under the section but he shall be liable to pay the worker double the amount of the wages earned by the worker in respect of the holiday period. This matter was discussed on the Committee Stage. The Minister then said that he thought there was something to be said for the amendment and that he would look into it. He added that he had every sympathy with the amendment.

The worker can recover the pay due.

That is so. He could do that under the Bill as it was being discussed when the Minister said he had sympathy with this amendment.

Is the amendment necessary? If the worker works, he gets paid.

He may not get paid. He may have worked 1,800 hours and the employer may make no move to grant him his week's holidays. If he asks for holidays, the employer may say that he cannot afford to give them and that if he goes off he will do so at his own expense. There may be no wages forthcoming at the end of the week. The worker will then have to obtain the services of a solicitor, show the solicitor that the employer has contravened the Act, issue a summons against the employer and claim a week's wages. The case will be heard in the courts and, in the end, the worker will get only a week's wages with, perhaps, costs, although he has been subjected to very considerable inconvenience.

If you put in the amendment which you propose, are you not giving the worker a temptation not to take the week's holidays but to arrange with the employer instead?

I do not think so. I am merely seeking to add at the end of Section 19 (5) the words set out in the amendment. Section 19 (5) says: "If any employer fails to allow annual leave to any worker in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence under this section." I want to add to that that he will be liable for double wages. If the Minister accepts this we will know that the employer is liable to pay for two weeks' holidays if he causes all that difficulty to the worker. A judge may hold the circumstances only entitled the worker to a week's wages. But there should be some deterrent placed upon the employer, so that he should not captiously refuse the worker his holidays. He might well agree to pay a week's wages rather than give the holiday. It is to deal with the obstreperous employer who will not act in accordance with the Bill that some penalty should be laid down if he does not comply with its provisions.

The penalty of £10 is provided.

Whom does that go to?

We do not want to give the worker any inducement not to take his holidays. If we say to the worker: "If you do not take your holidays you may recover two weeks' pay," there is an inducement to the worker not to take them.

No, it is if the employer fails to allow leave to the worker to take his holidays. The employer must fail to allow the worker to take his holidays.

Yes, the source of information is the dissatisfied worker. If he does not get his leave, he will report to the Inspector, who makes an investigation, and if it is found that the employer fails to allow the worker to take his leave, he will be prosecuted. But if the worker knows that unless he claims his holidays he will not get them at all, he may be tempted to put things off; he may not claim his holidays, and allow the employer to commit an offence. There will be a temptation to do that if the worker knows that by reporting the matter he will recover two additional weeks' wages. I do not like to put that temptation in the way of the worker, or to induce him to do anything but claim his holidays. I think it would be undesirable to have the position otherwise than it is. If the worker wants the benefit there is only one way of getting it, and that is by taking his holidays. The Deputy's amendment would provide an alternative to recover three weeks' wages.

The Minister says he gives the worker the right to get his holidays, but if he goes on his holidays and exercises his right he may not get his pay.

We give him the right to recover through the courts.

Yes, but that does not give him the right to get his wages when going on his holidays. Take the case of a man who has done his 1,800 hours of work and wants to go on his holidays next week. The employer says: "I cannot pay next week; if you go you will get no wages from me." The worker exercises his right under the Bill, and on the following Monday does not present himself for work. Then later he asks the employer, what about the week's wages for the holidays I had last week? The employer says: "I told you last week I could not pay you," so that the employee-does not get his wages. The Minister says that he can see a solicitor, issue a summons against the employer and bring the case into the courts.

As a simple contract debt there is no necessity for all that machinery.

Of course there is. The employee must go to a solicitor and have the case decided before a judge in court. That is the right the Minister gives the worker. I think if the worker is compelled to go to court he ought to be entitled to get something more than he would be entitled to if the employer respected his duties under the Act. It is no innovation. It is already a well-known policy in respect to employment insurance where an employee may recover against an employer who refuses to stamp his card. The employer who refuses to stamp the card of his employee will be compelled to stamp it and will not get any assistance to meet his liability. The same thing applies under the Unemployment Insurance Act. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment in its present form I would be quite satisfied if he looks into it and meets the principle involved.

I do not want to give the employee any inducement not to take his holidays. The Bill, as we propose to amend it by a new Section 49, is quite satisfactory. We give the worker the right to take his holidays whether the employer gives them or not. He can take his holidays and he becomes entitled to be paid and by simple legal machinery he can enforce his claim to be paid.

What is the simple legal machinery?

He can recover on a simple complaint to the inspector. There is no difficulty.

There is difficulty. Here we are up against the impact of new legislation, while we know that employers will not comply with existing legislation, such for instance, as the Factories Act, and the Minister bemoaned that fact himself.

I did not bemoan it. I bemoaned the attitude of the District Justices in enforcing these Acts. We say to the employer he must do this, and if he does not he is going to be penalised by the imposition of a penalty for every day during which the employer continues his offence. In these circumstances there is no reason to think that employers will take such a risk. Take the other position. If in addition to the employer suffering this penalty he will have to pay two weeks' wages to the worker, the worker might be induced to allow the offence to be committed and let the week pass in order that his employer might have that penalty inflicted upon him. It would become a source of gain to the worker if the employer failed to do his duty.

I do not say that he should be paid two weeks but that the employer should be liable to pay two weeks. Let the judge decide the matter. If the employer was clearly wrong let the matter be decided by the judge.

I do not think that is an effective way of securing what we both want, that is that the worker should get his holidays. I think the provision in the Bill is sound.

In regard to Deputy Norton's observation I am not assuming the Minister accepts his interpretation of the conditions under this Bill. Deputy Norton drew a picture of an employee, having served 1,800 hours, going up to his employer and saying, "I am going on my holidays whether you like it or not."

It is not after 1,800 hours; it is after 51 weeks.

In fact, what would happen is that the employee must take his holidays when it is convenient to take them, unless the employer allows the year to pass without giving any week.

If there are only six days left the worker can take those six days.

Or sue the employer for default in not having allowed the holiday, but he is not at liberty to go up to his employer and say: "Having served 1,800 hours I am going to take a week's holidays."

I did not say that.

He is entitled to go up to his employer and say: "My employment year is just over. There are only six days left in which you can fulfil your statutory obligation. I propose, therefore, to take those six days." In such an eventuality the employer is bound to pay him.

Would the Minister examine my point?

It is not so much a matter of examining the Deputy's point as examining the whole machine for ensuring that the statutory holiday period is going to be enforced.

I think this is a reasonable way of meeting it.

I think it is a dangerous way.

It is not a dangerous way unless you cannot trust the judge.

You might not be able to trust the worker to take his holiday instead of his pay.

Is the amendment withdrawn?

If the Deputy is pressing the amendment I shall have it looked into.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 49:—

In page 10, before Section 20, to insert a new section as follows:—

Whenever a worker for salary or wages is allowed by his employer any annual leave to which he is entitled by virtue of this Act, such employer shall pay to such worker, in respect of each day of such leave, salary or wages at whichever of the following rates is applicable, that is to say:—

(a) in the case of a worker whose ordinary remuneration is wholly calculated by reference to time, at the rate at which such remuneration was payable immediately before the commencement of such anunal leave, and

(b) in the case of a worker whose ordinary remuneration is wholly piece-work wages, at the average daily rate of his earnings (exclusive of pay for overtime) in the period in respect of which he is allowed such annual leave, and

(c) in the case of a worker whose ordinary remuneration is partly calculated by reference to time and is partly piece-work wages, at the average daily rate of his earnings (exclusive of pay for overtime) in the period in respect of which he is allowed such annual leave.

This is an improved provision of a kind which is already in the Bill. It does not effect any substantial change. It deals with the calculations of the payments to be given to the workers during the annual holiday period.

And is in substitution for sub-section (20), paragraph 4?

Exactly.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 50:—

In page 10, to delete Section 20 (4).

This is a consequential amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 51:—

In page 10, before Section 21, but in Part II, to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) Every employer who is required by this Act to allow annual leave to a worker shall give to every worker to whom he is so required to allow such annual leave notice in writing of the day on which such annual leave will begin, and shall so give such notice not less than one week before such day.

(2) A notice given in pursuance of this section to a worker may be given either by handing such notice to such worker or by exhibiting such notice in a prominent position to which such worker has access in the place in which he is employed.

(3) Every employer, required by this section to give to any worker such notice as is mentioned in the preceding sub-sections of this section, who fails or neglects to give in accordance with this section such notice to any worker on any occasion on which he is so required so to do shall be guilty of an offence under this section.

It was suggested by Deputy Norton that it would be undesirable if the position were left in such a way that the employer could notify the worker at mid-day on the Saturday, when paying him his week's wages, that he must take his holidays in the following week. Consequently, we are proposing to provide here that at least one week's notice must be given to the worker as to the period during which he must take his holidays. That notice can be given either in writing or by publication of a notice in an accessible place in the factory, which, I take it, will be the ordinary practice. I should imagine that in an ordinary factory the practice will be to publish a notice early in the year indicating the period at which each employee will get his leave. The third sub-section here merely provides for penalties in the event of default.

I think that in fixing one week the Minister has drawn this amendment rather tightly.

A minimum of one week.

That enables the employer to sail down closely to the week. Visualise the position of a worker who may be told on, say, Monday morning: "You are to take your week's holidays from next Monday." The worker might want to arrange to take his family away for the week. He might want to arrange some other details as to where his family would go, and at what price they would get there. He might want to arrange with some other member of the family to go with him. All that will have to be done in a week, during which the worker will be employed. I think a week's notice of the time at which they must take their holidays is very inadequate. I had hoped that the workers would get much longer notice, and, in fact, there is no real difficulty for the employer in giving it.

There might well be difficulty. I agree that, ordinarily, longer notice should be given, but I do not think that the statutory obligation should be for more than one week.

Under an amendment passed by the Minister the employer was required to give a month's notice of his desire to substitute a Church holiday for a bank holiday.

But that is a different thing.

He is required to give a month's notice of changing one holiday, but he need give the worker only a week's notice in respect of his whole six days.

That is the individual worker.

But this may not be the individual worker?

The worker who is in employment, and has had continuous employment for 12 months, and becomes entitled to a holiday, is one of the fortunate people, while I think he is entitled to get—and probably will get in the great majority of cases— longer notice than a week, if the exigencies of the business, the volume of orders coming in, and the nature of the contracts that have to be fulfilled by the employer allow it. If he can get longer than a week's notice that is good enough. I do not think he has much grievance, if, as an effect of giving that week's notice, he is secured continued employment in the future.

It is a curious consolation to the worker that he must be satisfied if there are not some weeks in the year during which his family are hungry. That is a curious effect of the system under which we live.

The Deputy knows that a contractor or manufacturer might have several workers engaged in the execution of a particular order. He knows that other orders are coming in. He says: "Between those two orders I can give my men their annual holidays. It suits my business. It means that their convenience and my convenience will be served."

Do the workers agree that their convenience is served?

I think that the workers have every reason to be satisfied if, because of that arrangement, they are secured continued employment under the new order.

I cannot at all agree with the Minister when he says that a worker ought to be quite satisfied to put up with the inconvenience of getting a week's notice of his employer's intention to grant him his six days' holidays. Six days is a miserable period of holidays. That is all the worker is going to get under this Bill. In other countries he gets much more, notwithstanding the statement to the contrary by the Minister on the Committee Stage of the Bill. He is going to get six days' holidays under this Bill.

A minimum of six days' holidays enforceable by statute. Why does the Deputy think it necessary to misrepresent the Bill in order to meet his point?

That statement is untrue. I am not seeking to misrepresent the Bill.

There is a minimum of six days, enforceable by statute.

Does not the Minister know that a lot of people do not get any holidays at the moment?

They are going to get six days under this Bill. That is the only enforceable holiday they can get. The Minister knows perfectly well that employers will not give anything more than the enforceable minimum. Surely the Minister knows that?

Some employers are giving holidays at the present time when there is no enforcement.

I know that, just as some countries are giving more than six days, and going much further than the Minister is going.

Very few.

If the Minister wants me to read them I will read them. The Minister's previous statements on the Committee Stage were very inaccurate in that respect. Here is a case where a worker is only to get six days' holidays per annum. That is all he can enforce under this Bill, and he ought to get as long a notice as possible of those holidays.

I agree.

He is going to get a month's notice if the employer proposes to substitute a Church holiday for one of the six Bank holidays, but he is going to get only one week's notice when his employer is going to give him all his holidays at a particular time which will suit the employer. I think a week's notice is inadequate. I think if the Minister were to provide for a month's notice the employers would find very little difficulty in adjusting themselves to that. It is done at present in many cases where workers get holidays; they generally know a considerable period in advance. If that can be done by good employers, with good organisation, there should not be any difficulty in others finding it possible to accept the same standard. A good employer will give reasonable notice. An employer who has been accustomed to giving holidays to his staff will give adequate notice, but the inefficient employer, who has no conception of his social responsibility, who has got an inefficient outlook, and who dislikes a Bill of this kind, will squeeze the last right that he can get out of this Bill. The tendency will be to give the minimum notice rather than the maximum. I think the Minister should substantially increase the week's notice.

In looking at this section I think that Deputy Norton approaches it from an entirely different angle to that of the average employer. I should like him to consider just where this point is leading. There is no doubt that in most employments holidays are arranged as far ahead as possible, and in many cases employees—and I consider very properly—get two or three months' notice when their holidays will come on. But all sorts of unforeseen circumstances turn up. For instance, the lining of a furnace may fall down and leave a factory idle. I suggest to Deputy Norton that if he is too hard on employers in emergencies, he may force them to shut down, instead of giving notice of holidays. If Deputy Norton wants longer notice, it should be stated that cases of emergency were excepted, because these are really the cases where employees will be cut down to the minimum of a week. I am sure Deputy Norton would be the last to contend that in industry at the present time all sorts of unforeseen circumstances do not turn up. The lining of a furnace might fall down, there might be a serious fire on a ship during the night or a ship might founder in some other part of the world. As all sorts of circumstances crop up, I suggest to Deputy Norton that he should either leave this matter alone, or put in a saving clause dealing with cases of emergency.

Emergencies will not occur during the period of the notice. I want it so that an employee can be told in May that he is going on holidays during the first week in July. What happens between May and July does not matter, as the worker will be still at work.

But if an emergency occurs during that period the employer will want to advance the holidays.

That may be true. If it is a case for providing for emergency of that kind, I am willing to accept any provision for dealing with that position.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 52:—

In page 10, section 22 (1), line 53, before the word "declaring" to insert in brackets the words "(in this Act referred to as exclusion regulations)".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendments Nos. 53 and 54:—

In page 11, section 22 (2), lines 6 and 7, to delete the words "persons who are in his opinion representative" and substitute the word "representatives"

In page 11, section 22 (2), lines 8 and 9, to delete the words "persons who are in his opinion representative" and substitute the word "representatives"

These are consequential on amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Amendments agreed to.

I move amendment No. 55:—

In page 12, section 25 (2), line 4, after the word "section" where it secondly occurs, to add the words "and such worker shall also be guilty of an offence under this section".

This is similar to other amendments that we had on other sections, which put the obligation on the worker, as well as the employer, to observe the principles of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to

I move amendments Nos. 56 and 57:—

In page 12, section 26 (1), paragraph (e), line 19, after the word "shift" to add the words "but shall not be entitled to leave the premises of the employer during such period of rest without the permission of the employer".

In page 12, section 27 (1), paragraph (e), line 39, after the word "shift" to add the words "but shall not be entitled to leave the premises of the employer during such period of rest without the permission of the employer".

These are necessary provisions in relation to the rest period for shift workers. Quite a number of employers have made representation that the only thing in the Bill that is perturbing them is the provision that workers on shifts in certain industries may be allowed to leave the machines during the rest period. In certain cases risk would be involved if the machines for any period were left otherwise than under observation by the skilled workers concerned. We propose, therefore, to preserve the rest period, but to make it clear that a worker will not be entitled to leave the premises during that rest period or that he will be available in the event of anything going wrong that would require skilled attention.

This is a most extraordinary kind of amendment and is clearly put in by the Minister at the request of employers. Is there any danger of anything happening a machine? Is not a worker fully conscious of the danger to which he exposes himself and his colleagues? There may be cases where there is a particular boiler or machine in some factory where a worker stays in for a long period and then says: "I am now entitled to fifteen minutes' rest, and I am going outside for a few minutes' recreation." Surely he should be entitled to do so during the rest period. Under this amendment he cannot even go out for a breath of air.

At present these workers get no rest at all. They take their meals and attend to the machines at the same time.

What is the Minister talking about?

Of the class of workers I have in mind.

That is a most audacious statement. Does the Minister contend that people working under those conditions do not get out of the premises for a short interval?

Some of them do.

Under this Bill none of them may go out. This is an amendment to cage the workers.

Nothing of the kind. The Deputy is deliberately misrepresenting me.

That statement is deliberately untrue, and was made by the Minister knowing it to be untrue.

The Deputy must withdraw that remark.

I will, if the Minister withdraws his statement, that I deliberately misrepresented the position.

The Deputy's amendment is not what is on the Order Paper.

On a point of order, I am solicitous for the Chair in this matter. Deputy Norton stated that what the Minister said was untrue, and deliberately untrue.

The Deputy may not proceed until he withdraws the unparliamentary words.

I said so in reply to a remark made by the Minister to the effect that I was deliberately misrepresenting the purpose of the amendment. I was not deliberately misrepresenting the purpose of the amendment, and the Minister's statement, therefore, was of the character I described. If the Minister is prepared to withdraw his statement I am perfectly willing to withdraw mine.

The amendment is that workers shall not be entitled to leave the premises without the permission of the employer. That is quite contrary to what Deputy Norton said.

What about the point of order?

I withdraw the word "deliberately."

And I withdraw the other remark.

Birds in their little nests agree.

A nice pair of birds.

To get back to the amendment, at present a worker can get out during the rest interval. He may be engaged in circumstances that make his work very fatiguing and very strenuous, and if he gets out for 15 minutes during the shift the worker is getting nothing very extraordinary from the Minister or from the employer. If there is any danger of anything happening a machine, that might injure the worker or his colleagues in the industry, the worker may be relied to be fully alive to that danger. Of course any sensible worker in these circumstances would remain on the premises. Ordinary common sense would suggest that he should take steps to avoid any possibility of such a catastrophe occurring.

I think the section is quite all right as it stands. It allows a worker 15 minutes' rest in each shift. It reads: "Every worker shall be allowed at least 15 minutes' rest in each shift not less than three nor more than four hours after the commencement of such shift." That is as much as anybody could reasonably require. But the Minister is not satisfied with that. A person may be working at a boiler or at an open fire; he may be working in a fetid atmosphere or in a place which few of us would care to choose as a place for industry. But he is not to be entitled to go out for the 15 minutes' rest. The Minister says in his amendment: "but shall not be entitled to leave the premises of the employer during such period of rest without the permission of the employer." If Deputy Dillon had any justification for talking about Hitler methods he has it in this amendment with a vengeance. One would think the worker had no rights at all. At present he can go out.

With the permission of the employer.

Where is the permission of the employer required?

Certainly.

Under what Act is it required?

There is no obligation to give a rest.

In fact they do go out at present, but the Minister is going to cage them.

In some industries they go out, but in others they do not.

You are going to cage them under this amendment.

I am not going to cage anybody.

They are not to go out during the rest period. Those who go out at present will be kept in.

That is not in the amendment we are discussing. The Deputy is not capable of understanding it.

I would not come to the Minister for advice on understanding anything, because he seems to have an insurance policy against understanding anything.

He is a sergeant-major.

He is even worse. You would expect common sense and equity in what a sergeant-major would do. This is an amendment to keep the workers in during the 15 minutes' rest. I think it is an outrageous proposal. I do not believe the employers thought the Minister would accept this when they submitted it. They said they found the Minister most pliable in the matter. He was prepared to agree to introducing the amendment to keep these people in during the period of the rest interval. The amendment is a most unfair one. No employer could reasonably expect more than is in the section.

The Minister might make a case for the amendment if he stated that some terrible catastrophe had occurred while the workers were out, but no such case has been made. All we are told by the Minister is that the employers wanted it done, and therefore he agreed to do it. He is not prepared to let the present position alone. What is the difficulty in leaving it alone? If some of them stay in, they may stay in for a good reason, and if others go out, they may go out for a good reason. Why not leave the present position alone instead of compelling the worker to remain in even during the 15 minutes which he is going to get out of a nine-hour day? That is the prospect the Minister is offering them. He is not satisfied with the present position but would worsen it.

I submit that the amendment is bad in principle. It does not effect the purpose the Minister has in mind. What the Minister has in mind is that in very exceptional cases, where constant supervision of dangerous machinery is necessary, employers can depend upon an employee to stand by. These can be the only circumstances under which it would be justifiable to restrict the freedom of the employee in his free time. As Deputy Dockrell said to me a moment ago when speaking to him, the fact is that these matters only give rise to difficulty where you meet a curmudgeon employer or a curmudgeon employee, and in 99 out of every 100 cases it will be just as much the solicitude of the employee to keep his machine in order as it is of the employer.

I suggest to the Minister that, instead of a general provision purporting to keep the employees within the premises, unless the employer permits them to leave, he should introduce some provision whereby individual employees, on the application of the employer or themselves, might have a certificate permitting the employer not to grant this 15 minutes as a statutory right, and then whatever compensating relaxation there should be would become a matter of personal arrangement between the employer and the employees. It would mean that, in general, factory employees are entitled to 15 minutes' rest, but in special cases, where employees are engaged with dangerous machinery, the employer could get a certificate in respect of them relieving him of the statutory right to give them any rest, and they would be left in the same position they were in before this legislation was passed, which, as we all know, means that, in fact, they do get some free time during a shift which is taken in a way which conforms to the convenience both of employer and employees. That is a practical proposal to get out of the difficulty.

Deputy Norton, in spite of all his Socialist indignation, knows well that there is a difficulty here, because if you have a cantankerous workman who insists upon his statutory rights at every turn, he may walk out and leave an important machine unsupervised, and serious damage may be done. He would be able to defend himself by saying that he had a right to leave the factory during the 15 minutes' rest. If this is inserted it will inconvenience thousands of men, whereas all we want to do is to provide for perhaps half-a-dozen exceptional cases. The practical way to get out of that is to leave everybody free and to make provision that a certain man can opt out of the 15 minutes part of the Bill where the Minister is satisfied that a reasonable case is made for allowing him so to opt out. If the Minister will adopt that course he will save himself from the fury of Deputy Norton, who will feel constrained to make several violent speeches describing the Minister as what I really believe him to be—an Irish Hitler.

The Minister led the House to believe by what he said when moving the amendment that the parties responsible for the suggestion looked upon this as a most important matter concerning them.

I did not say that.

At any rate he has clearly led the House to believe that cases had been put to him that men and women who were not under some kind of statutory discipline of this nature would recklessly go away from their machines and leave these machines probably to be smashed up or something like that. I am sure the Minister has no definite evidence in his possession from any big industrialist that that kind of recklessness has been going on. Therefore I do not see that there is any case for the insertion of a provision of this kind in this Bill. I think the Minister might leave it to the ordinary disciplinary rules of industrial firms to deal with a cantankerous workman, as Deputy Dillon said, who would be so reckless as to leave a machine and ignore the fact that by doing so he was going to upset the working of the concern.

How would an employer deal with that workman unless the amendment is inserted when the freedom is a statutory right? It would be an offence for an employer to deal with him.

Let us have the case put to the Minister in connection with the insertion of this amendment. Let us know what body of responsible people put this suggestion up to the Minister. Were they representatives of the Saorstát Federation of Industries or representatives of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce? Let us have the arguments put up to the Minister in support of the insertion of the amendment in a Bill which, as far as I can see, otherwise provides for decent working conditions for people and the continuance of harmonious working conditions between employers and employees. There are men in charge of the firms which will have the obligation of administering an Act of this kind and it should be left to the heads of the firms and the foremen and others to co-operate to such an extent as not to require the insertion of a mandatory disciplinary provision of this kind.

This mock indignation of Deputy Norton and Deputy Davin does not deceive me. They know quite well that the industries covered by this section—continuous process industries—are in a special category. These industries are concerns that must be kept going.

Has the Minister any case to show?

Has the Minister any case to show where such concerns must be kept going, by statute—where the workers must do their work?

No, I have not, but they have certain rights.

They have, virtually, the same rights as always.

Not by statute.

What is the difference?

The difference is that there would be no right to keep them from leaving their work.

The suggestion is that they might do it in a reckless way.

Well, I will give you the case of a sugar cooker in a sugar factory. His business is to watch the sugar boiler and to read the index. There is no labour, so to speak, involved; his sole labour is the adjusting of a tap or two to keep the boiler right. He can take his meals, and he can even read the paper while he is doing so.

He can read the paper?

Yes—providing that he does not leave the place, and that he can always see the gauges on the boiler.

Reading the paper?

He can perform his duty. The employer says:"If we give the man the right to leave the boiler, then an entirely new shift must come on to take his place, because the boiler cannot be left neglected or unattended; if it is left unattended there may be an explosion and other places may be affected." The same would apply to such places as gas works. There would be a definite danger, not alone to the people engaged in the particular industry but to other people engaged in other industries. Then, take industries governed by this particular section. The practice has been that the workers take their meals and their rest periods adjacent to the machines they are watching. It is proposed to continue that. It is not proposed to confine the workers in the factory. The provision is that they cannot leave the premises without getting the consent of the persons in charge, and I think that it is such a reasonable provision that it is ridiculous to describe it as a proposal to cage the workers. It is an obviously sensible proposal and I am quite certain that, in the regulations governing sugar factories, and other such factories, in Russia, or in any other country, similar provisions apply. This is not a question of restricting the opportunities of workers, but it is a question of securing reasonable working conditions for the workers, subject to the conditions of the industries in which they are engaged, because, if these industries are not carried on, the workers concerned will not have any work. This section is designed for the protection of the employees, and if the employees want it to be deleted, we will delete the section altogether. If the Deputy wants this attempt to regulate the employment of these workers stopped, I will stop it. I am not prepared to force these improved conditions on the workers if they do not want them. Personally, I think they do want these improved conditions. But, if they do not want these improved conditions to be enforced as a statutory right, I am prepared to agree to that.

Surely the Minister condemns himself out of his own mouth. I thought we were going to give these people 15 minutes' rest; or is it that we have determined that it is impracticable to give them that period of rest?

There are certain cases where it might not be practicable, and other cases where it might be necessary to deal with the problem in a different way.

I recognise that, in certain cases, it may not be practicable, but there is no use in telling me that you are not going to give a sugar-cooker 15 minutes' rest.

Do not forget the 15 minutes in the gas works.

Yes, let us take the gas works. Well, if so, it is no use to tell me that they are enjoying 15 minutes' rest if they are still watching the gauge in the sugar factory or the gas works, as the case may be. If this provision is made, that the man in the gas works, or the sugar-cooker, will stop watching the gauge for 15 minutes a day, the result is that the employer can say to these workers: "Well, if we have to give that 15 minutes' rest, you must spend that 15 minutes' rest watching the gas gauges."

Where is that?

I understood the Minister to give us the case of the sugar-cooker and the watcher of a gauge in a gas company, and that he pointed out that if the sugar-cooker elected to read his newspaper away from the gauge no harm would be done.

I suggest that no harm would be done if Deputy Dillon would spend 15 minutes reading the amendment and not in making a speech about it. This Assembly is not a gas works.

The Minister says that great damage might be done by a man leaving his work in such a case, and that, if the Minister was not prepared to make a concession with regard to this amendment, it would mean the employment of a completely new shift of sugar cookers for that period of 15 minutes' rest. If that is the purpose the Minister has in mind, this amendment is calculated to do away with the whole 15 minutes' rest in practice, and means that an employer can take away the privilege. I think that there may be cases in which men ought not to have a statutory right to 15 minutes' rest-cases where it might not be practicable —but where such cases do exist, I suggest that representations can be made to the Minister, and that he can certify that certain people, doing such work, would be entitled to a certificate and would be in the same position as they would have been before this legislation was passed. I would like to pass over the 15 minutes' rest for the vast majority of cases, but the inevitable fact remains that, in certain cases, as the Minister must confess, it is not practicable to deal with all these cases. If the Minister would give us the particular cases he has in mind, then we would know where we are; but, under this system nobody is going to be satisfied. The employer is going to be inconvenienced and Deputy Norton is going to address himself in Ringsend to the people there about the Hitler proposal in this present Bill. I make that practical suggestion, and the Minister must agree that it is a practical suggestion, and one that will get over the difficulty he has in view, and at the same time deprive everybody of any sense of grievance.

After all that has been said on this amendment there are one or two points that I want to clear up. Is it only necessary to get the permission of the party in charge of the worker if effect is to be given to the terms of the amendment? As it is the amendment is perfectly meaningless for the employee should go and seek his employer and get permission from him. If the Minister wants it to mean the representative of the employer he should say so in the amendment. As it is the employee on each separate occasion should seek the permission of his employer in advance; or is he to get agreement in advance as to the particular hours he would be entitled to leave the premises during each period of rest?

"Employer" there would cover the representatives of the employer. He would not have to go to the Board of Directors.

Then it would be necessary to have the word "representative" inserted there and it would also be necessary to know if he could have this permission for every day of the week. Otherwise, he would be brought back to the position of his schooldays. The amendment seems to envisage a lack of confidence or trust in the workers for it suggests that they would recklessly go away and leave the machinery unprotected and uncared for. It must mean that they are so reckless and irresponsible in regard to the care of the machines at their disposal that they would go out and seek the fifteen minutes' period of rest without the permission of those in charge of the undertaking. Those who suggested the amendment apparently looked at the workers from a suspicious angle. In the past the men had to take their meals and the meals period was much more important than this fifteen minutes' rest period. And in the past there has been no case where the worker has done anything to show that he did not feel full responsibility for the machines of which he was in charge. The Minister told us that the men had to take their meals while at work.

In certain cases. Men who had charge of the gauges will have little actual work to do.

I think the amendment is a reflection on the workers and it shows a lack of confidence in their sense of responsibility. If the amendment is going to be persisted in I do hope it will be made clear that the worker is not going to go out looking for the Board of Directors before he gets his fifteen minutes of rest.

If this amendment is carried the worker will not be allowed to go and seek for permission. This Bill passed through the Committee Stage of the House leaving Section 27 untouched. That section apparently then expressed the Minister's view in connection with shift work. The Minister's advisers told him that in shift work there were adequate safeguards, and the Minister, on being satisfied that there were, allowed the section to go through the House. He now comes here on the second Committee Stage and tells us quite calmly that the employers asked him to put in this amendment, and he has put it in for them. The artificial fury of the Minister about watching the gauges betrays the whole weakness of his case. Section 27(1) (e) as it stands is a perfectly sensible section. But the employers got at the Minister and, according to his own statement, said: "You must amend this." Then we have the Minister coming back and saying to the House: "Will you accept this amendment, which provides that the worker `shall not be entitled to leave the premises of the employer during such period of rest without the permission of the employer'?" which, in effect, is saying that if the employer agrees, the workers may have a 15 minutes' rest in each shift, but if the employer does not agree he will not get the 15 minutes. That is the effect of the Minister's amendment, which vitiates whatever value was in Section 27 (1) (e).

Only in special industries such as those to which I have referred.

If there is any danger of lives being lost or machinery being blown up I am prepared to meet the Minister in a situation of that kind.

That is what the amendment is designed to do.

The amendment gives the right to the employer to say to the worker: "I will not give you permission to go outside," and Section 27 (1) (e) is rendered ineffective once the Minister adopts that attitude and refuses to allow an appeal to himself. I am willing to allow the matter to be decided by the Minister. Let the employer make an application to the Minister that it would be undesirable that the worker should leave the machines for this 15 minutes' period. If this amendment is passed we have no guarantee that it will not be used in cases where legitimately the permission could be granted. The most the Minister should ask the House is to give him authority to decide these cases, and I think the employers would be satisfied with that. He told us he is inserting this amendment at the request of one set of employers. Is the Minister sure that the employers would not agree to allow the matter to be decided by the Minister himself? I am sure the employers have sufficient confidence in the Minister to allow him to decide border-line cases. The Minister should go back to the people who asked him to make this amendment, tell them the difficulties in the way and the vicious principle underlying this amendment, and ask them if they will be satisfied with his decision. That is a reasonable request. The sub-section is quite useless if the employer is allowed to refuse permission indiscriminately. Is there to be any appeal from the refusal of the employers? If this amendment is carried there will be no such thing as this interval except with the permission of the employer.

Progress reported. The Committee to sit again to-day.
Barr
Roinn