Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 Dec 1937

Vol. 69 No. 16

Shop Assistants (Conditions of Employment) (No. 2) Bill, 1937—Committee (resumed).

Debate resumed on the following amendment:—
In Section 18, sub-section (1), line 35, to delete the word "eleven" and substitute the word "nine".— (Deputy Norton.)

I think Deputy Norton was speaking on this amendment when progress was reported yesterday. I do not think it is one that could be or should be accepted. The purpose of Part III of the Bill is to restrict working hours in shops. It is proposed to institute a 48-hour week as the normal working week for shop assistants. It is, however, intended to provide that a maximum of 11 hours in any one day may be worked. It is, of course, obviously impossible to work 11 hours per day regularly if a 48-hour week is to be observed, but in the circumstances existing in shops it is necessary to allow a certain elasticity to deal with the conditions of particular trades. I think Deputy Norton was speaking with certain well-known types of shops in mind, but he must remember that in the section we are setting down a maximum working day that will apply to all shops in all parts of the country at all times of the year.

That is what this sub-section is intended to do. It is not framed to determine what the normal working day will be, but to fix an over-riding maximum which will apply generally; that is, a maximum of 11 hours per day. Whether it is a day during the Christmas season or a fair day or market day in a country town, or whether it is any other special occasion upon which exceptional trading conditions might operate or not, that over-riding maximum will operate. That is what this sub-section is intended to provide, and to reduce that over-riding maximum to 9 would be, I think, a mistake and it would impose undue and unnecessary restrictions upon the conduct of a retail business in certain circumstances.

Deputy Norton said that the Conditions of Employment Act of 1936 provided for a maximum day of 9 hours. It did, but it also provided for an overtime period of 2 hours. There is no comparison between industrial conditions and retail trading conditions. Industrial conditions can be organised on a regular basis. The circumstances under which retail trading is carried on must allow for a considerable fluctuation as between one day and another and one season of the year and another and, consequently, any reference to the provisions of the 1936 Act are of very little value as an argument. I think the period of 11 hours is reasonable, bearing in mind that it is an over-riding maximum and it could not under any circumstances become the normal working day, having regard to the other provisions of the section.

I agree with the Minister's viewpoint, because this 11-hour day is not going to happen twice a week. It would not be to the advantage of the employer to endeavour to work it in twice a week. If an assistant works 11 hours one day, the working day is cut down at other times. I wonder if 9 were substituted for 11 how it would work in a country town on a fair day? I wonder has Deputy Norton ever been in a country town on a fair day?

I would imagine not, seeing that he has put down an amendment of this sort. The conditions of a country town on a fair day are well known to most Deputies. On an ordinary day a country town usually gets alive and the places are open for business at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock, but on a fair day the business element of the town are wide awake and astir even at 4 o'clock. As a rule, the public-houses open at 7 o'clock. They get special exemptions because it is a particular day. If the assistant works for a very long time that day—and the assistants do—what is the result? I wonder has Deputy Norton ever been in a country town the day after a fair? If you go into a country town the day after a big fair—I have attended fairs with very considerable frequency and I have often been in the town on the next day and I know the conditions—you will find practically the whole town asleep at 12 o'clock. There is scarcely anyone on the streets.

Will the Deputy say which door of the public-house opens at 7 o'clock in the morning?

Every public-house can sell at any hour to a bona-fide traveller, and in the case of non-bona fide travellers, the public-houses get exemption orders from the District Justice to open early.

Only around the city, in the case of the Dublin market.

I beg the Deputy's pardon. It applies to every country town in Ireland. The Deputy may take that as being correct.

I am afraid you might be right for once.

Always I am right. It is the greatest delight of my life the way I am educating this Labour Party. They are learning very rapidly; in fact, they will be quite a good Party in time. This is a thing which, of course, will be very seldom availed of. In the ordinary way for carrying on business such as is carried on in a country town, I think the 11-hour arrangement is very advisable.

Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney wonders what is going to happen on a fair day if 9 hours are fixed as the maximum. I presume the Deputy knows that it is possible for the workers to be employed on overtime, and that an abnormal situation of that kind could, therefore, be met by resort to overtime instead of putting into the Bill a provision which makes it possible for the workers to be employed over such a long period.

The Deputy is not right. If he puts in 9 hours here he will not be able to work overtime.

Deputy Norton is wrong there. Sub-section (1) makes no provision for overtime. It is a maximum of 11 hours whether on ordinary work or overtime.

Why work at all?

I was not conscious of it having that rigid effect, but assuming it had, the shop is not compelled to close after 9 hours, and the situation which Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney envisages is one which can be met by an adjustment of staff. It is not suggested that this amendment will have the effect of preventing shops opening and dealing with customers. That matter would be dealt with in legislation relating to hours of trading. The amendment would not have the effect of closing a shop. It is still possible for the shop to serve customers.

Does the Deputy not see that on these rush days the whole staff will be working the whole time? It is the one day in the month on which the staff will be working their very hardest.

When you come to deal with whether a staff should work hard or whether the staff should work for a reasonable period, I think you have to strike some sort of a reasonable level, and I believe a maximum working day of 9 hours ought to be adequate. After all, in respect of industrial employment—and "industrial employment" has a pretty wide definition in the Conditions of Employment Act—the maximum working day is 9 hours. If we fix 9 hours as the maximum working day for all the categories of workers dealt with in the Conditions of Employment Act, I do not think it is unreasonable to fix a maximum of 9 hours in respect of shop workers. If the number of hours under this section be reduced from 11 to 9, the shop worker can be employed up to a maximum of 54 hours per week—48 hours normally and 6 hours' overtime whereas, under the Minister's provision, it is possible for a worker to be employed for 11 hours on any one day and 60 hours in any one week.

Not in any one week— in a particular week. It could not be 60 hours every week.

It could be 60 hours for quite a substantial period of the year when you take into consideration the half-days off, the holidays and bank holidays. Taking these into consideration, the worker could be employed for 60 hours during a substantial period of the year. That is too long. I think that we ought to fix a maximum of 9 hours per day, which would make possible a working week of 54 hours. Is there any situation in the ordinary retail trade which makes a maximum working week of 54 hours, including overtime, unduly short? I do not think there is. There is not much fluctuation of traffic in ordinary retail premises. There are certain fluctuations at certain odd times of the year. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney says that the fair is a problem which has to be dealt with. On another motion— perhaps one dealing with the economic war—Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney would tell us that there are no fairs now.

Only half fairs, but they are there.

He says that these fairs are now so thriving and prosperous that everybody wants to get into shops between 4 o'clock and 7 o'clock in the morning to spend their money.

If you walked 15 miles and got into a town at 4 o'clock in the morning, you would like to be able to get into a shop at 7 o'clock.

The Deputy will argue in connection with this Bill that fairs are thriving and prosperous.

I have not said so.

He will say that the farmers are bursting to get into shops at 4 o'clock or 7 o'clock in the morning to spend the money which, on another motion, he will say they have not got. He cannot have it both ways. The farmers cannot be ruined and prosperous at the same time, and it cannot be necessary to open a shop at 4 o'clock or 7 o'clock in the morning to enable them to spend money which they have not got.

Is there no mean between ruin and prosperity?

The same farmer cannot be in both positions. I think that a maximum of 54 hours per week is adequate in the drapery trade.

This section does not deal with the drapery trade.

I should have said the retail trade. There is no contingency which could not be budgeted for within that reasonable margin; and a 54-hour week and a 9-hour day is sufficiently long without extension to 11 hours. We have already recognised the principle of a maximum working day of 9 hours, and I think we ought to recognise the same principle in this Bill. When a worker is required to work 11 hours, he has virtually no social existence on that day, because, during that time, he must be at the disposal of the employer. It is possible for the worker under this section to be required to attend at 9 o'clock in the morning and not to be away from the employer's premises until 9.30 at night. That is an inordinately long day, and I do not think the Minister should permit a worker to be employed for that period. A maximum working day of 9 hours would result in the worker being at the disposal of the employer for approximately 10 hours, having regard to the fact that an hour of the 10 hours would be spent in having a meal, on the premises or off the premises. That time is of no great social value to the worker. If the time in the Bill is adhered to, it will mean that the worker will be at the disposal of the employer for 12½ hours on certain days. Would the Minister say whether he would be prepared to meet the subject matter of the amendment to some extent?

What we are fixing is an overriding maximum which will apply in respect of all shops at all times, irrespective of whether the worker is employed on normal work or on overtime. I think that a maximum of 11 hours is quite reasonable. I could conceive traders arguing that even that period was unduly restricted. Deputy Norton has spoken as if we were contemplating that the normal working day would be one of 11 hours. The section does not deal with a normal working day. It deals with the abnormal period that arises in every trade in every part of the country, and it says that, even in these abnormal periods, no matter what the circumstances, the maximum day must be one of 11 hours. Having regard to the exceptional circumstances that arise in some trades in certain districts, some provision of that kind is necessary. I should not be disposed to shorten the period at all.

Would the Minister not be prepared to bring the maximum down to 10 hours?

No. Eleven is quite reasonable—from 9 to 7 p.m.

From 9 to 7 p.m., apart from meal intervals. Would the Minister insert 11 hours for cases of emergency and not make it possible to resort to 11 with the frequency possible under this section? If the Minister were prepared to do that, I should be willing to withdraw my amendment.

The Deputy has to keep in mind the exceptional circumstances —for instance, the shop at the seaside resort which, perhaps, does all its trade in one month of the year and which, if it did not get exceptional facilities for trading in that month, might not be able to carry on at all. The shopkeeper, in that case, might be able to give his workers exceptionally short hours at some season in return for getting exceptional service in exceptional times.

Could not the Minister meet a situation of that kind by providing that, in certain areas such as tourist and holiday resorts, that condition of affairs might be permitted?

We have that in Section 5. It gives us power, by order, to release the trader from the restrictions imposed.

From the existing restrictions?

I suggest that the Minister should try to meet the difficulty of the 11-hour maximum by providing for a 10-hour or 9-hour maximum, which might be exceeded in holiday or tourist resorts.

The Deputy does not appreciate what the section provides. We say that the employee should ordinarily work a 48-hour week but, to meet fluctuations in business, we provide for overtime. With overtime, the employee can work up to 60 hours a week, and a certain number of hours per month and per year—all subject to the overriding consideration that, on any one day, the maximum number of hours worked must be 11. I think that that is quite a reasonable provision and that it would be unreasonable to restrict it further.

My complaint about that provision is that the worker's hours may be so adjusted that, for two or three days a week, he may be required to work inordinately long hours. I appreciate the difficulty that has to be met in the case of seaside and holiday resorts but why permit an employer to employ a worker up to 11 hours on any one day in a place where an emergency of that kind does not exist and has not to be provided for?

Is it not reasonable to assume that he will not do it? The ordinary shop will open from 9 o'clock until 6 o'clock, except for the half-day.

What will happen, I fear, is that workers will be kept on for long hours towards the end of the week, and will have short days, or divided attendances, in the other portions of the week, and that will be an objectionable arrangement. Suppose an employer were to say to a worker under this section: "I am permitted to employ you up to a maximum of 11 hours in one day. I will bring you in on Monday morning for a couple of hours, book you off and bring you back in the evening; I will do the same on Tuesday, and on Wednesday you will have a half-day; on Thursday, I will employ you for 10 hours, and on Friday and Saturday for 11 hours." A working week made up that way would be most irksome from the point of view of the employee.

It would be most irksome for anybody. There may be some exceptional trades in which such circumstances might be practicable, but if there are, we have to provide for the circumstances of these exceptional trades. I have in mind one type of worker who works exceptionally long hours per day, but he gets these long hours compensated for by whole days off. I have in mind a certain class of worker who works from early in the morning to late at night. It is not a particularly heavy type of work, but he gets one day off in four. In quite a number of unusual kinds of occupations and trades, exceptional conditions will exist and provision must be made for these exceptional conditions.

What is the trade the Minister has in mind?

There are quite a number of traders to which that applies.

Covered by this Bill?

No, I am not saying that. I cannot say that I am familiar with the circumstances of every retail trade, but if there are exceptional trades where all the business arises on one or two days in the week, some provision must be made for them. You cannot put them all into the same mould.

My way out for the Minister is to recognise a shorter maximum working day in normal circumstances, but to deal with the emergency in the subsequent section.

I do not think you can do it that way. You have to do it on the basis of regulating the working hours.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendments stood on the Paper in the name of Deputy Dockrell:—
51. In page 10, before sub-section (2), to insert the following sub-section:—
The immediately preceding sub-section shall not apply to the proprietor of a shop which is a refreshment house.
53. In sub-section (2), line 37, after the word "shop" to insert the words "not being a shop which is a refreshment house."
56. In sub-section (3), line 42, after the word "shop" to insert the words "not being a shop which is a refreshment house".
63. Before sub-section (4) to insert the following sub-sections:—
(3) Save as otherwise provided by this section, it shall not be lawful for the proprietor of a shop which is a refreshment house, to permit any member of the staff of that shop to continue to do shop work in any week for a period in excess of the following number of hours, that is to say:—
(a) if such shop is situate in the area comprising Greater Dublin— 56 hours, or
(b) if such shop is situate outside the area comprising Greater Dublin—60 hours.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the immediately preceding sub-section, the proprietor of a shop which is a refreshment house, may permit any member of the staff of that shop to do shop work in any week for a period in excess of fifty-six or sixty hours (as the case may be) so that the number of hours of shop work done by such member does not exceed:—
(a) seventy hours in any week, or
(b) two hundred and sixty-four hours in any period of four consecutive weeks, during which he is in the employment of such proprietor;
(c) three thousand, two hundred and seventy-six hours in any year during which he is in the employment of such proprietor.

Amendments Nos. 51, 53, 56 and 63 can be debated together.

Amendment No. 63 being the principal amendment.

All four endeavour to exclude refreshment houses from certain conditions.

I move amendment No. 51. I should like the Minister to consider his own words because I think he has himself shown that in a Bill like this, there must be a certain amount of flexibility. The Minister last night referred to a messenger boy arriving half-way up a street at quitting time and then knocking off. Similarly, in a refreshment house, you do not want to have a situation in which a customer is being served with the soup and his meal stopping there because the maximum hours have expired. If the Minister looks into it, he will see that refreshment houses require a consideration quite different from that required by other forms of trading. Undoubtedly, workers in this trade have to work long hours, but there are periods when they are not serving at all. It is not like a retail shop where the assistants are kept going by customers coming in from time to time. The Minister should consider that, after all, people require to eat and drink, and unless he is going to say to the general public: "Between certain hours, you cannot have a cup of tea or a meal," he should examine how far he can extend the flexibility of the conditions applying to the catering trades.

With regard to Section 18—and what I have to say is more or less in connection with Deputy Norton's amendment with which we have just dealt— you have in that section a normal working week of 48 hours and then you have 11 hours in one day, 60 hours in a week, 228 hours in four weeks and so much in the year. Most employers, I think, do not approve of overtime. It is not economic and it has been demonstrated many times that an employer who employs four employees to do the work of five employees, working them on a basis of 25 per cent. overtime, is at a disadvantage in every respect. That is admitted by the employers. Employers look on overtime as a necessary evil. It has to be worked from time to time and it is largely co-ordinating. A great number of employees are working only 44 hours, but take the case of a staff working 48 hours a week. What are they working? Probably 8½ hours a day on 5 days, making 42½ hours, and then 5½ hours on Saturday. The proprietor sees emergency work piling up. He does not think he will tackle it on Monday evening, it is a little worse on Tuesday, and he then says: "I will have to clear this up; we will have to stop in on Wednesday evening." His normal day is 8½ hours. What is in front of him? The usual thing for an employer to say is: "We do not want to keep the people in more than we can help and if we work half-an-hour one day, it will clear off all the arrears for the week." That will bring him up to 12 hours and a fraction on a single day. I want to stress that the Minister is making it impossible for any retail trader ever to work one and a half days in a day.

I should like to know what the Deputy is discussing.

I am on Section 18.

The points the Deputy is discussing should be raised on the section. The amendments should first be disposed of. The Deputy's four amendments dealt with refreshment houses, about which we have heard nothing yet.

I accept your ruling absolutely, and I will wait until the section comes on to make my statement. I wish to say that the refreshment houses should really be in a more flexible position than other traders. At the present time it is a nice question to decide if the ordinary trader is in a position that is sufficiently flexible. I will confine my remarks now to refreshment houses. There is a case for treating them in a special manner.

I presume the Deputy is discussing the four amendments together?

Yes. The amendments were prepared hurriedly, and I am in the Minister's hands as to how far he is prepared to make special provision for refreshment businesses. From some remarks he made last night, he realises that refreshment businesses are not on all-fours with the position of ordinary traders. I am quite prepared to withdraw the amendments if he would care to consider representations with a view to getting something that will satisfy the Minister and provide that the hours at which the ordinary public can get refreshments will not be unduly restricted.

I wish to ask the Minister how he proposes to deal with seasonal business, with special reference to districts that cater for tourists. In my constituency surrounding Cork Harbour, a very large number of people cater for tourists and for those whose health necessitates spending a certain time at the seaside. These places, of necessity, must have long hours for business. The traders are in a small way, and as their profits are seasonable, if the business hours are not long, probably they would not be able to cater for their patrons. How does the Minister propose to deal with cases of that kind if the hours of business are restricted? The present proposals would practically mean doubling the number of employees, having two people where one did before, but the business might not be able to afford that expense. That would simply mean that that kind of business would have to shut down, or there would be fewer businesses on a larger scale. Perhaps the Minister could give some indication as to how he would dispose of a problem of that kind. It is one of considerable importance to a large number of people, and affects an industry in which the Minister is also interested.

I do not quite see the relationship between Deputy Dockrell's amendments and his remarks as to the desirability of having more flexible regulations applied to refreshment houses than to ordinary shops. The Deputy referred to the possibility of a waiter serving a customer with soup, and then deciding that his hours of work had expired, and knocking off, leaving the diner without the rest of his dinner. That situation could arise whether the waiter's hours of work are 48 a week, as is provided here, or 56 or 60 hours a week as provided in one amendment. The only point that arises on that amendment is whether the hours of work during which persons are employed in refreshment houses should be 48 or 56 in the week. The Deputy proposes 56 hours in the case of Dublin and 60 hours in areas outside Dublin. It is difficult to know on what ground that proposal is made. I do not see that we can make any distinction between the work involved in refreshment houses and the work involved in ordinary shops. In respect of a certain class of refreshment-house work, it could be said that it is more onerous or even more unpleasant than other forms of shop work. It is, of course, recognised that the main difference between "refreshment house" as defined in the Bill and the ordinary shop is that in the case of the ordinary shop it will be the practice of the proprietor to make the hours of trading coincide with the hours of employment. If the employment of assistants is confined to 48 hours in the week, the hours of trading will, in practice, be 48 hours, whereas in the case of refreshment houses much longer hours of trading are not merely the practice but are desirable. I do not know that there would be any general approval of the idea to restrict unduly the hours of trading in refreshment houses, certainly refreshment houses of the kind that cater for tourists, to which Deputy Brasier referred.

It has to be recognised, however, that the principal class of persons affected by Deputy Dockrell's amendment are persons employed in licensed premises. It is true that the amendment affects hotels, refreshment houses, cafes and tea-rooms, but from the point of view of number, I should imagine that employees in licensed premises are the principal class concerned. At the present time they have in Dublin an agreement with their employers, an agreement which, I understand, is enforced by a very strong trade union organisation, limiting their hours of work to 56 in the week, but the hours of trading permitted by law are, of course, considerably longer than 56, and the employers had to adjust their arrangements so as to enable their staff to be disemployed at times when their houses were open for business. I do not see that it is going to constitute any considerable difficulty for them to adapt themselves to the circumstances that will arise when the 48 hours becomes law. It may involve, in the case of some of the larger houses, the employment of additional staff, if not on a whole-time basis, at least on some basis which will enable the full complement of assistants to be there when required.

I have been informed that certain discussions have taken place between the trades unions concerned and the representatives of the employers to see how arrangements to that end might be made. In rural districts I do not imagine that there would be very great difficulty in operating the 48-hour week, having regard to the other provisions of the Bill, because in licensed houses it is very rarely the case that business is brisk all the day round, and each day of the week. In most licensed premises there are certain times, or special days in the week, when the services of an assistant are required, and the employers will have little difficulty in fulfilling the law in relation to the hours of employment of an assistant and, at the same time, securing the services of an assistant when the circumstances of the business call for it.

Now, in relation to restaurants and hotels, I think the same circumstances arise. We will have to make certain modifications in Section 19, which deals with spells of employment, in order to meet the circumstances of hotel waiters and similar employees who are, in fact, ordinarily employed in spells. They are employed for the breakfast period and then have a period off before lunch, and another period off before dinner. In relation to this class of worker also there should, I think, be no difficulty in adopting a 48-hour week. Certainly, many classes of hotel workers are more urgently in need of the protection of legislation of this kind than shop assistants or other persons affected by the Bill, because some of them work exceptionally long hours and are paid at exceptionally low rates.

I do not think that Deputy Dockrell has made any case for the amendment, nor do I think there is a case for putting the workers in those premises in a different position, in respect of the maximum hours worked, from persons employed in retail shops. I gave the matter consideration. There was a natural temptation for me to leave the licensed trade outside the scope of this measure because the licensed trade, in respect of hours worked and conditions of employment, has already been the subject of legislation. That legislation is administered by another Department of State, so I thought I might have a good alibi if I left the trade out of this Bill. Their hours of work, right to, holidays and certain other provisions, were all fixed by statute as far back as 1912 or 1913. Consequently, I might have been justified in leaving the trade outside the scope of this measure altogether, but I felt that it would be difficult to defend that, however plausible the arguments that one might produce, seeing that we were instituting the general practice of a 48-hour week for workers employed in retail distribution. I should require much stronger arguments than any I have heard, either from Deputy Dockrell or from organisations of employers who have made representations to me on the matter, before I would be prepared to make any exception to that rule.

Most of the remarks which the Minister has addressed to the House have not been on this amendment at all. They have been on amendment No. 69, which I am going to move later. Any remarks that I make now will not refer to amendment No. 69 at all. They will deal entirely with eating-houses.

Refreshment houses are defined in the Bill in the definition section.

I know, but they are a different proposition altogether. I am dealing now with hotels and with houses the major portion of whose business is the providing of food even though some are licensed and some are not. The amendment that I would like to see the Minister accepting is No. 51, though I fear from the remarks that fell from him last night that he will not accept it. I can quite understand that there are persons in hotels who are overworked. I am completely in agreement with the Minister in saying that that ought not be allowed to continue. What I want to see is, how this legislation is going to affect work in hotels. Suppose that you stop in a country hotel. There is the hotel boots. He is the first up in the morning and the last to retire at night. On occasions he may be only able to get two or three hours' sleep, and then he is at it the whole day long. That seems to me to be an impossible life. My difficulty in speaking on this is that the Minister has not yet made up his mind as to what class of hotel servants this measure shall apply to, and what class of attendants in restaurants it shall apply to: as to whether it applies merely to waiters and waitresses or to cooks and people who work in the kitchen. Whether it applies to hall porters we are not clear. Our difficulty is that the Minister has not yet made up his mind. We will not know his attitude on this until we see it expressed on the Report Stage.

It seems to me that there will be great difficulty in carrying this out in refreshment houses. Let me take the example that I was dealing with a moment ago—the hotel boots. I imagine that his wages are practically nil. He lives on his tips. Then you have the case of the waiter. Looking at it not merely from the customer's point of view but from the waiter's point of view, it would be very unpleasant if you had, say, a half-dozen people dining in a hotel, if the waiter who was expecting to get a tip from them had to leave after serving the joint because if he remained a minute longer he would be committing an offence. Waiter No. 2 comes along with the sweet. That is the only service he renders the diners, and he presents them with the bill. That certainly puts waiter No. 1 in a very unpleasant position. He goes away and he gets no tip. We all know that in hotels and restaurants the tips the waiter receives are, at least, twice as valuable as the wage he gets. I wonder how is this going to hit those hotel servants. I should imagine that it is going to reduce their income seriously. I think that in a great number of instances it will work out very unfairly. For that reason I think that the whole of this hotel business should be considered and legislated for by itself.

My own opinion is that the licensing business and the restaurant business cannot be legislated for in the same measure. They need to be treated on a different basis. In the case of the hotels it will certainly be very hard on the waiter who attends at lunch and dinner if he has to leave before the meal is over, and in that way lose his tip. I do not know that the hotel and the draper's shop have anything in common, or that they can be dealt with in common. If the hotel and restaurant business is to be successfully carried on, it seems to me that you must allow the workers who are in touch with the customers a fair deal. The legislation dealing with them will have to be conceived in a different way from the Bill before us. I am afraid that if this legislation goes through, unamended, you will have a number of the smaller hotels shutting down. That would be very disadvantageous for the country. On some days the hotels are very busy, and on others very little business is doing. On the occasion of a wedding breakfast, for instance, a great number of waiters are employed, but as against that you have days when there is little or nothing for them to do. It seems to me that the whole problem is quite different, as I said, from the problem of the retail shop, and that you cannot run a restaurant on the same lines as a retail shop.

I should like to point out that this suggestion of a waiter having to "knock off," so to speak, in the middle of a meal, or in the middle of some other work in which he is engaged, is, of course, nonsense, because such a circumstance does not arise in the Bill. Under the Bill, we are not fixing the hours per day but the hours per week.

But suppose that the employer has made some arrangement with his worker to the effect that the worker is going to work 8 hours on the particular day concerned. Will the worker, in such circumstances, be included if he works after the hours specified? Dare he work on under such circumstances?

Why not?

He cannot undertake to remain on working in these premises without the consent of the employer.

But there is no offence committed.

Well, of course, you could not have the case of the waiter fixing his own hours. That is a matter for the employer.

The Minister seems to think that I had the licensed trade more in my mind than any other section of the catering trade in my remarks. That was not so. I want to bring to the Minister's attention a certain class or section of the catering trade that I had in mind, and I do not know whether the Minister will agree that it is a more difficult problem than that which is concerned with the licensed trade, because it seems to me that, with organisations on each side such as they have, they can very well look after themselves. The point I want to make, however, is that it seems to me that the position of a hotel in the winter time which has a dance practically every night is a very different proposition. It seems to me that that is a really serious problem, because such hotels have big and expensive premises and they have to keep large stocks and to provide expensive foods and drinks which they have to have under the supervision of responsible members of their staffs. Now, that is not a case into which you can bring casual workers. I quite agree that it would be absurd, for instance, for somebody who is washing up dishes all day long, or doing some such work as that, to be expected to work these longer hours; but it seems to me that, where you have got a big and expensive establishment, which has to keep open for just one particular class of their trade, for perhaps one hour of the day—such as a hotel— early in the morning, and then has to keep open for a dance later that night, there should be a greater amount of flexibility allowed in cases of that kind. It seems to me that, if there is not a greater amount of flexibility allowed in such cases, there will be a grave danger that such people will find that they will not be able to cater for that particular class of business, and that they will find themselves in the position that that class of business will have been killed by certain legislative enactments. Now, I do not want to see the worker having to work unduly long hours, because I do not approve of that, either from the physical or the moral point of view, but I should like to ask the Minister whether or not he could see how far we could go to meet the special conditions of the catering trade.

I think that we have met the special conditions of the catering trade reasonably enough by means of the various provisions provided in the section. For instance, if a hotel organises a dance, which may go on to a late hour in the night or until early in the morning, and desires to have the staff that has been employed during the day to remain on in service during the period of that dance, then I say that the staffs so employed at that dance are entitled to payment for overtime work—unless the dance is a regular feature of the hotel work, in which case I think a special staff should be employed; and I think that, in such a case, it would be unreasonable to expect the day staff to do that kind of work regularly, especially when we consider this maximum with regard to hours that has been fixed.

Amendment No. 51, by leave, withdrawn.

Does not amendment No. 52 cover the same point?

I am not sure, Sir, As a matter of fact, I do not know what amendment No. 52 is concerned with.

I move amendment No. 52:—

In sub-section (2), line 36, to delete the words "this section" and substitute the words "the next following sub-section".

The Minister says that he does not quite understand this amendment, and I must confess that I am in much the same boat myself. However, I think I shall be able to explain the intention of this amendment.

The Chair took it that this was opening the way for amendment No. 63, but perhaps the Chair is mistaken also.

I think that the Chair is correct. The idea of this is to exclude the application of sub-section (5) of Section I from sub-section (3) of the same section. I think that is the general head. Under sub-section (1) it is provided that there shall be, generally speaking, a 48-hour week, and that is in sub-section (2). Now it goes on, in sub-section (3), to state that, subject to certain conditions, there shall be a certain amount of work, not to exceed a certain limited number of hours in each week. That is perfectly correct. It provides for overtime rates in the usual way, but if sub-section (5) is let in—the portion where the Minister reserves the right to amend any of the provisions in this Bill relating to hours—the Minister can amend in sub-section (3) the number of hours a week, and he can have that 60 hours treated as ordinary working hours, thereby depriving the employee of overtime rates. You could amend sub-section (3) by this clause and you could say that the employee is to work those 60 hours, thereby depriving the employee from being paid overtime rates and saying that he would be only paid as for ordinary working hours. I think that the only way this can be remedied is by means of this amendment. If it were to be confined to this sub-section, it would mean the stopping of the Minister from being able to increase the number of hours to 60 hours per week.

I see what the Deputy is getting at, although I think he would get the same result by proposing to remove the sub-section out of the section altogether, because the sole purpose of sub-section (5) is to give power, by order, to amend or extend the maximum hours of work set out in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of the section. It is desirable, and I speak now from experience of other legislation of this kind, to have powers to deal with the special circumstances that are bound to arise in special trades. We provide here a safeguard that before action can be taken on sub-section (5) there must be consultation with representatives of the employers and members of the staffs of the shops likely to be affected by the order. We have these consultations regularly under the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, before various orders are made modifying the application of the Act to different trades or under special circumstances. It is necessary to have that.

There are some trades in respect of which perfectly normal hours may be worked day in and day out the whole year round. There are other trades where the whole business of the year may be concentrated in a very short period, in respect of which some modification of the provisions of the section may be regarded as reasonable by everybody concerned, including the employees. It has, in fact, been our experience under the Conditions of Employment Act that where reasonable grounds for modification of the provisions in respect of special trades or occupations existed, application for such modification came as often from the employees as from the employers. In any event, the assent of representatives of the employees was usually forthcoming.

In relation to this section of the Bill I think we should have the same powers of modification. I do not contemplate they will be used very frequently; but, if some special circumstance arose, such as an occasion which brought very large crowds for a very long period to some centre, suppose, for instance, this Bill had been in operation on the occasion of the Eucharistic Congress in 1932, there should be some provision to modify the section so as to permit longer hours of work being adopted in these circumstances, wherever required.

Can the Minister think of any other example, so that we may have an idea of what way the section will be likely to operate?

We should have power to deal with these exceptional and unusual circumstances if they arose. It is not intended that this power should be used in any normal circumstances.

Would the event require to be of such a gigantic and spectacular character?

Not necessarily. I assume with reasonable certainty from past experience that we will have representations from some trade, the circumstances of which were not perhaps even thought of, and the circumstances of which we were not aware of, for which some special provisions will have to be made. We had these general powers of extension under the Conditions of Employment Act, and they have had to be used fairly extensively. A very large number of exemption orders have been made, and unless they had been made, the Act would have operated to prevent certain industries being carried on at all. It is in contemplation of similar circumstances arising in relation to some retail trade that similar powers are being taken under this section where the hours of work are concerned. It is a sort of a general safeguard to enable us to deal with circumstances which we have not foreseen or which may arise in relation to a particular trade or district.

The point made by Deputy McGowan is that, while an emergency may develop, and while it may be considered desirable that an emergency should be met, it should not be met in such a way that workers should be required to work in excess of 48 hours without receiving overtime payment for attendance beyond 48 hours. The Minister may think it desirable in a special event to permit an employer or employers in a particular area to work, let us say, 72 hours a week every fortnight or three weeks on some special emergency. Deputy McGowan's point is that, if the employer is permitted to work in excess of 48 hours, which is the normal working week, and in excess of 60 hours, which is the normal maximum for ordinary work plus overtime, any portion of the attendance beyond 48 hours should be at overtime rate. In other words, that if you permit an employer to work his staff beyond 48 hours, you should in any case provide that such attendance as exceeds 48 hours should be at overtime rate. He is not quarrelling with the provision for granting exemptions in certain circumstances, but he wants to make sure that, where a worker works for more than 48 hours in any of these emergencies, he should be entitled to the overtime rate provided for in sub-section (4). Will the Minister undertake to meet that point?

I would prefer to have the wider power. The Deputy may be assured that the provision for consultation will prevent the power being used recklessly or injudiciously in any circumstances.

Will the Minister contemplate granting permission to an employer to employ persons in excess of 48 hours without payment of overtime for the excess over the 48 hours? The Bill lays down a general principle of a 48-hour week with certain exceptions. There may be overtime up to 60 hours per week, and in sub-section (5) of Section 18 there is provision for exceptions beyond that. The cardinal principle of the Bill is a maximum working week of 48 hours. If we give exemptions beyond 48 or 60 hours, the right of the worker to overtime payment, when the 48 hours is exceeded, should be preserved, otherwise you do violence to one of the main principles in the Bill. Will the Minister undertake to look into that? It is easy to meet the matter.

Sub-section (5) has power which is preserved still with reference to sub-section (3), except in this one particular connection. In time to come, a Minister might be dishonest enough to amend that section, according to his powers under sub-section (5), to mean that they could work up to 60 hours and perhaps beyond it. It is quite possible that they would be ordinary working hours for which a man would not get overtime. Even if this is put in, "save as otherwise provided by this sub-section shall not work more than 48 hours per week," he still preserves all his other powers to amend the section.

I am thinking of a case which might arise where you will get, perhaps, an agreement between workers and an employer under which they will work, say, a 48-hour week for a number of weeks and a 52-hour week for a corresponding number of weeks, the arrangement providing that the over-all maximum would not be more than an average of 48 hours. You might well get that arrangement entered into, and I would not like to see ourselves in a position in which we could not implement it, if we were satisfied that it was desirable to implement it. We have had so many cases of that kind under the Conditions of Employment Act that I feel certain that similar cases will arise here, even though they will not be so many, because the circumstances of industry are more complicated than the circumstances of retail distribution. I have the feeling that some cases may arise, and it is desirable to have the possibility of hours longer than 48 hours being recognised for exceptional kinds of trades, in exceptional seasons, where it has been the ordinary practice so to do, or where the carrying on of the trade would be prevented otherwise. The overtime provision which is there is intended by me to discourage the working of overtime. I would feel that this Bill was a failure if it operated merely to secure that shop assistants should get more remuneration but continued to work the same hours, that is, hours in excess of 48, and that the only effect of the Bill was that while they did continue to work the same hours in excess of 48, they were paid more overtime. If that were the result, I should regret it. The provision was intended to operate so that in fact overtime would not be worked.

Would the Minister agree that the best deterrent would be to require the employer to pay for overtime?

Quite. It is precisely because in relation to certain trades we might have to contemplate more than 48 hours as a normal working week and not by way of overtime, that I think that power should be there. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; the Committee to sit again to-morrow.
Barr
Roinn