Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 30 Nov 1938

Vol. 73 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Holidays (Employees) Bill, 1938—Report Stage.

I move amendment No. 1:—

In page 7, Section 8 (4), line 59, to delete the words "such Good Friday" and substitute the words "the Good Friday so substituted."

This is purely a verbal amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 2:—

In page 7, Section 8 (4), line 61, to delete the words "such Easter Monday" and substitute the words "the Easter Monday for which it is so substituted."

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 3:—

In page 18, Section 16 (3), to delete paragraph (e) and substitute the following paragraph:—

(e) wilfully fails or refuses to comply with any lawful requirement of an inspector under paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of this section.

Section 16 sets out the powers of inspectors to make inquiries. By an oversight it was not made an offence in the previous Act for a person to make false declarations in answer to questions put to him by the inspector. The amendment deals with the powers of the inspectors.

Amendment agreed to

I move amendment No. 4:—

In page 20, Section 20, line 4, to delete the word "any" where it first occurs and substitute the word "an."

This is a verbal change.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 20, Section 20, lines 5 and 6, to delete the words "for such person to prove" and substitute the words "if such person proves."

This is also a verbal change.

Amendment agreed to.

A point was raised by me on the last stage with regard to a "short" day. I was hoping that the Minister would have done something to clear up the position. Possibly he is prepared to do it now. According to Section 9, a short day is not a working day. So far as I can discover there is no definition of a non-working day. I presume it is a day on which a person does not work. Therefore if a person works a "short" day it is not a working day and it is not a non-working day. What is it? Section 10, sub-section (6) deals with the question of holidays and non-working days coming before, after or during the period of annual leave. Supposing a Saturday, as it must, comes in that period, it is not a working day and it is not a non-working day. How does it stand for the week's holidays?

I considered the point raised by the Deputy and I am glad that he reminded me of it, because I would like to tell him my decision. The point I think the Deputy had in mind was whether days added on to annual leave in lieu of public holidays should be full working days or not. I think the answer must be in the affirmative. I recognise that it could happen that in the case of an employer allowing the whole of the six public holidays by way of days added on to annual leave in the case of a five-day week worker or a six-day worker with a short day, such an employer would have to give, in lieu of these public holidays, five days in one week and one day in the following week.

On the face of it, that appears somewhat inconsistent with the provisions of Section 10, the section dealing with the annual leave rights of non-domestic workers, which permits an employer to allow annual leave on non-working days when such days occur immediately before or after working days upon which annual leave has been granted. That arrangement is, however, for the purpose of facilitating annual leave being granted for a period of seven consecutive days. On the other hand, as the day in lieu of a public holiday, when given within a month of the public holiday, must be a whole day or a working day, it follows, therefore, I think, that it is only right and equitable that the days in lieu of public holidays tacked on to annual leave must also be given on full working days. On these grounds, I feel that we should leave the Bill as it stands.

There is a further point. In sub-section (6) of Section 10 there is reference to where any non working day or any two or more consecutive non-working days fall immediately before or immediately after. Now, Sunday must fall immediately after Saturday and Saturday is the usual short day. But, under this, Saturday is not a working day. Therefore, the following Sunday will not fall immediately after a working day because there is a day which is—I do not really know what it is; I asked the Minister and he will not tell me. It is not a working day under his own definition and, if a person works on it, it is not a non-working day, but the Sunday comes immediately after that and under that section it cannot be included because it does not immediately follow a working day.

I would like to pursue the argument a little bit further and put up this possibility to the Minister. I take it that the annual leave can commence on any day of the week. It terminates a week later. Surely the commonsense thing is that days in lieu of holidays should be tacked on to the end of that period. There may be employers who would like to run the period in to have two Saturdays, but I think usually the Minister will find that both the employer and employee want to convenience each other, and is the Minister going to be in this position, that an employee will say to him: "I got my period of annual leave terminated on a Friday night. I was due another holiday. I had to go back and work the Saturday. Then Sunday intervened and then I got Monday. I would far rather have one period following a number of consecutive days." I think if employees have gone back to their own homes or any distance, he will find that is the case. To my mind it is an extraordinary idea that because of the Saturday there is going to be a sort of break made in the period of holidays. Is it not the commonsense thing that if the employee is not given the Saturday he will be called back to work on that day and the cure may be worse than the disease?

I know, but we must try to deal with the equities of the case. Where it is annual leave proper, we allow the Saturday and the Sunday to be counted. Seven days' annual leave can include a Saturday and Sunday. The particular case Deputy Dockrell and Deputy Benson raised on the Recommittal Stage was not one which related to annual leave proper; it related to annual leave given in substitution for public holidays. The Bill provides that a worker is entitled to get a holiday on a public holiday. If he does not get that, he must get a full working day off within a month. If he does not get that, he must get a day added on to his annual leave. Should that day on the annual leave be the half-day or a Saturday? Clearly it would be unfair to the worker to say that it should be.

If the worker gets a full day off on the public holiday or within a month of the public holiday, it is all right; but if he does not get either of those, when it comes to annual leave he should get a full day off. A worker getting all the public holidays by way of days tacked on to annual leave might have to get one day at the end of the fortnight. I do not think that case would arise very frequently and I think it is purely theoretical, but, at the same time, it would be inequitable to have any other arrangement.

I quite agree with the Minister, and I would like to be fair also. I would like to consider the equities. I would consider that if the day was put in front of his week of annual leave or behind it, it ought to be considered as part of it, even if it did fall on a half-holiday. I put up to the Minister—and he has not answered me—the case of the worker whose week of annual leave terminated on a Friday. The position will then be that he will have to present himself for work on Saturday, work the half-day—he will get, of course, the Sunday off—and he will then go away on the Monday. I would like to suggest that a very great number of employees would far rather have a consecutive run, even though it did include a Saturday. Take the case of an employee who has gone to his home at the other end of the country. He would argue that if he were given the Saturday he could come back on Sunday night and practically have two days longer holidays. I would like to put that aspect before the Minister.

I would like to suggest that the case that is being made can only possibly happen in one eventuality and that is where a man is deprived of the entire of his public holidays and has them tacked on to him as annual leave.

No, he might have missed by one day.

If that is so, there is no difficulty at all. You have five full days in a week. Your only trouble is Saturday, and in any event when an employee gets less than the complete number of his public holidays tacked on to his annual leave, this problem will not arise, and in no instance, in actual fact, will that happen on Christmas Day. Christmas Day will not be taken from anybody. That is not going to be tacked on to annual leave. You will find that it is very rarely this problem will arise at all, because only on rare occasions will the holiday workers be losing their public holiday and having it tacked on to annual leave. At worst this must happen before the problem arises to which Deputy Benson and Deputy Dockrell referred. I think it is narrowed down to an infinitesimal problem.

I do not think it will arise in very many cases although I do not agree with the Deputy in saying that it would not apply to Christmas Day at all. Somebody must work on Christmas Day. Transport workers and other classes of workers must work on Christmas Day, and it will arise in their particular case. The particular point that Deputy Dockrell was trying to make cannot arise because if those days are added on to annual leave they must be consecutive. There must not be a break. The law makes it clear that the days must be given consecutively. That may involve running into the next week—Monday to Sunday night. The short day on Saturday can be counted and given in the seven days' leave, that is, a week's holiday in the year; but where it comes to the substitution of days for public holidays then they must be given on full working days. I think any other arrangement would be inequitable, having regard to the other alternatives which the Bill provides. The worker is being given a right to a holiday on a public holiday. It is recognised, however, that a public holiday would not be a holiday for most people unless somebody worked, and therefore some provision must be made for those who have to work. Employers are given two alternatives. Either they can employ the worker for the public holiday on extra pay, or, alternatively, give him another day's holiday within the month on a full working day, or alternatively give him a full working day added to his annual leave. I think it would be unfair that the employer should get out of his liability in respect of the public holiday by giving him a half day's holiday added on to his annual leave.

There is just one other point I wish to mention. I see, of course, that the Minister has adhered to his change of mind on the full day week, and, of course, I suppose, like everybody else, the Minister is entitled to change his mind. At the same time I would like to suggest to him that that will contain a number of anomalies which may form fresh precedents for various grievances as between one section of the workers and others. I am not going to suggest that it is a vital principle, or anything like that. At the same time I think that to pay one worker six-fifths of a day and another a full day is an anomaly which the Minister, at any rate, ought not to have started. However, as there is no provision for this in the Bill, I am just going to register my regret that it is going through in that form.

If I may be allowed to intervene again, although I realise I am breaking all the Standing Orders, as we are not in Committee, I would like to deal with the point which Deputy Benson raised. On the Recommittal Stage he questioned whether it would be in order for an employer to go outside the calendar year in substituting one holiday for another, giving a holiday on New Year's Day for St. Stephen's Day. The reply to that question is that the position is unchanged and in sub-section (3), paragraph (b) of Section 8, the right is still reserved to employers to substitute, if they wish, the 1st January for the previous St. Stephen's Day as a public holiday.

I submit a further point to the Minister on the question of these holidays. He says that there is provision that the short day can be included in annual leave, but I would like to know where it is. Admittedly, sub-section (6) of Section 10 says that in the case of a non-domestic worker Sunday shall be reckoned as a day of annual leave, but it makes no provision for including the short day, and I submit that this question of the unnamed short day does seriously affect the ordinary annual leave, and it seems to me that, as the Bill stands at the moment, in order to give seven consecutive whole holidays it would be necessary to give from Monday to the following Tuesday week morning to overcome the difficulty of the short day. If sub-section (6) could read: "In the case of a non-domestic worker Sunday and the short day shall be reckoned as annual leave" then my qualms would be set at rest, but, as it does not, I think there is a real problem there.

Question—"That the Bill, as now amended, be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take the Final Stage?

I am in the hands of the Dáil. I have no desire to rush this Bill. I do not know that it would be desirable to bring it to the Seanad before Christmas. It might be bad for the Senators, and, so far as having it put into operation is concerned, I do not think it is desirable that that should be done until April or May. So perhaps we might leave the final consideration open until next week.

This House cannot do much more with it.

Will the Minister look into Deputy Benson's point?

I will, certainly. There is a question of further amendments which will have to be done in the Seanad.

I would prefer to leave it open until next week.

It is entirely a matter of convenience—in this House or in the Seanad. We have found in practice that it is undesirable to bring any of these Holiday Bills into operation except some time in the month of May. In the case of workers in continuous employment, the period of the year in which they get their holidays is determined by the time the Bill begins to operate, and it is desirable that holidays should be given, if possible, in the summer months. Therefore, in the interests of the workers, it is better not to bring it into operation until April or May or early June. That being so, there is clearly no need to rush the measure at this stage except from the point of view of members of the Oireachtas. I should imagine the Seanad will not be anxious to deal with it before Christmas. They may not be anxious to meet immediately after Christmas. If there is any objection, we can leave it open until next Wednesday.

Question—"That the Bill do now pass"—put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn