Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 4 Jun 1941

Vol. 83 No. 11

Trade Union Bill, 1941—Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. MacEntee)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. It is more than probable that one of the prime causes of industrial disputes in this country in recent years has been the multiplicity of trade unions, with overlapping activities, so that in many cases there have been two or more unions organising the same class and the same grade of workers in one industrial concern. As a consequence of such overlapping, competition for members has become keen. The unions have made demands upon employers, and have ultimately resorted to strike action, not because wages are unjust or conditions of employment unreasonable, but primarily to anticipate action by rival unions, and by success in pursuing demands to secure increased prestige and membership for themselves. Similarly, when a stoppage has taken place, if a dispute is in the way of being settled, further undue dislocation in trade and industry may be caused by the fact that, where a number of trade unions are engaged in the particular dispute, some of them may prove, for the same reasons of prestige, recalcitrant, even when the others have come to an agreement. It is more than merely regrettable from all points of view that inter-unions should exist. Such disputes may constitute a positive menace to the economic well-being of the whole community. They may damage not only the unions involved, but industry as a whole. They may occasion irreparable loss to many innocent people. Sometimes, indeed, they have culminated in open inter-trade union warfare manifesting itself in types of strikes completely without merit, whether viewed from the standpoint of the employers, the workers, or the public. Frequently, in the case of such strikes, no claims for improved wages, hours of work, or conditions of employment, have been presented as an excuse for the general paralysis of the industrial undertaking which has had the misfortune to be chosen as the battle ground. On the contrary, this ground has been chosen, and the strike has been openly or, I should almost say, shamelessly fought by the trade unions, simply to secure for the victor the exclusive right to employment for his own members in the particular trade or area, or sometimes even the particular operation involved.

In consequence, we have had this sort of thing happening. There is a certain key industry in connection with which a wages agreement between employers and the trade unions is made annually. In this industry, in a certain year, a particular union was approached first and negotiated and signed an agreement prescribing the wages to be paid for that season. There was a second union also engaged in organising the workers in this industry, and it was then approached and likewise signed the agreement. In the following year, however, the order of approach was reversed, the second union negotiating and signing the agreement first. The union which, in the previous year, had been the first to negotiate, thereupon refused to sign the agreement governing wages for the second year. Its members went on strike and work in this key industry was held up for a considerable time, not because of any quarrel about wages or conditions of employment, but merely on a punctilio of union prestige. Then, again, we have the position in the transport industry where we have unions which will not sit in conference with other trade unions, even though the latter have a significant number of the workers engaged in the industry enrolled. In other occupations, we have unions the members of which are not permitted to, or will not, work side by side with the members of other unions, with the consequence that Government contracts and other important works have sometimes been held up for long periods. In the engineering industry we have at least 16 unions catering for the workers. Some of these were formed as a result of secession from the older unions, and some even by successive secessions from the first seceders. We can imagine in these circumstances how harmonious the relations between the splinter unions are, and how vigorously they poach upon each other's preserves. But consider the general effect upon industrial conditions of all that in this country. Let me exemplify it by an example. After many years of effort, my Department by a fortuitous combination of circumstances succeeded in getting a group to reopen the Dublin dockyard which, as the House knows, had been closed for many years.

The company concerned in that enterprise had to negotiate with no less than 27 trade unions in recruiting labour. What a task that was for the employers to face, together with all the special difficulties of this time. All the possibilities of internal dissension in such a firm can be easily imagined, and they are not imaginary only for, though every precaution had been taken before the dockyard was reopened to obviate the possibility of a stoppage occurring or a strike, a strike did take place not so long ago in that concern which might have resulted in its closing down permanently.

Now, I am not to be taken as adjudicating upon the particular merits of any one of these causes of inter-trade union disputes. Sometimes, indeed, so much may be said on both sides that these disputes are often more bitter and prolonged than disputes between master and man, but, without prejudicing the merits of any particular case, I think that we are entitled to ask: Where is this inter-union rivalry going to lead? That is a question which I have no doubt many thinking trade unionists, followers as well as leaders, are putting to themselves. The trouble indeed with a dispute between trade unions is, that it is no mere private quarrel. It has public consequences often of a very grave character. It is all very well for unions to have their points of difference, but when they eventuate in economic civil war which deprives other workers in other unions of employment and paralyses productive effort, their quarrels cannot be ignored by those who are charged with the well-being of the State any more than they can continue to be ignored by those who desire to see a strong, effective and responsible trade union movement in this country. The truth in regard to the existing position is this: that if it be left to develop it will lead not to labour solidarity but to labour anarchy: if every group, with its disgruntled workers, is to be left free to break away from the parent organisation and form one union after another, all of them to fight for their own hand out of the loss of hardship which may be inflicted on the community, we shall have eventually a state of affairs in which public opinion will become so exasperated that an irresistible demand will grow up to put someone in power who will squelch the lot. This Government does not wish that situation to arise. Neither, I am sure, does any other section of the House desire it. For this reason we have introduced this Bill, in the belief that its provisions will go a long way to reduce inter-union rivalry, while permitting full legitimate trade union activities for the protection of the classes of persons joined together in these associations.

In order to appreciate the effect of the proposals contained in the measure, I should begin by explaining that, under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935, a trade union means any combination, whether temporary or permanent, the principal objects of which are, under its constitution, statutory objects. In this context, the expression "statutory objects" means "the regulation of the relations between workmen and masters or between workmen and workmen or between masters and masters or the imposing of restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business and also the provision of benefits to members." Any seven or more members of a trade union may obtain registration of the union by merely subscribing their names to the rules of the union, submitting these rules, with a list of the union officers and their addresses, and the address of the registered office of the union to the Registrar of Friendly Societies and by complying with certain other provisions as to registry, including the satisfying of the registrar that the principal objects of the union are statutory objects. Both registered and unregistered trade unions are entitled to operate as such. At the moment, certain trades unions in this country are registered. Certain others are not registered, while some are British trades unions, recorded — as the term is—in this country prior to 1922. Others are British trades unions which are neither recorded nor registered here. Prior to 1922, I should explain, a trade union registered in Great Britain could be recorded in this country and so enjoy here the benefits of a registered trade union. A decision in a recent action between two trades unions has made clear that a union registered in Great Britain cannot be recorded at the present time in this country. While the court made no pronouncement on the situation of unions recorded here prior to 1922, their position must, I presume, be regarded as doubtful.

It will be seen that any group of seven or more individuals may set up as a registered trade union by complying with certain simple conditions. Provided they draw up suitable rules, have a registered office and purport to pursue the statutory objects, they can proceed to organise workmen or, for that matter, masters, of any class or classes. The result of this freedom to set up trade unions has, I believe, been to encourage the formation of break-away unions when a section of the union becomes dissatisfied with the existing management or conditions. It cannot be said that the right to secede and set up a new union is bad in itself. It may, indeed, represent one means of dealing with evils in the parent union concerned. It becomes unjustifiable, however, if exercised without a sense of responsibility — if, for instance, it is due merely to the personal ambition of one or more members of the union or if it is due, as it is suggested has sometimes been the case, to resentment by some member or members, or some official, because of disciplinary action rightfully taken by the union against him, and a desire to revenge such action on the union concerned.

The evil effects of the secession tendency on the economic life of the community are manifested, however, when a new union proceeds to make exaggerated claims on employers in order to acquire a reputation for successful action on behalf of its members, and follows up those claims by inducing a withdrawal of labour. In such circumstances, trade union leaders who are conducting the affairs of their union with a full sense of responsibility to their members and to the nation are often compelled to increase their demands beyond what they believe to be justifiable in order to compete for membership with the break-away union. Beyond question, therefore, the present unsatisfactory position of the trade union law tends not merely to disrupt the trade union movement and to destroy sound and enlightened leadership within it, but to encourage the fomentation of the disputes, strikes and general industrial unrest. So serious had the situation become in this regard that, in 1936, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce decided that an effort should be made to deal with the evil by executive action within the trade union movement itself. He made representations to the Irish Trades Union Congress, set the position, as he saw it, before them and said that, if the Congress was unable to deal with it, the Government, in the interests of the community as a whole, would be compelled to act.

As a result of my predecessor's representations, the executive of the trade union movement called a special trade union conference in April, 1936. This conference set up a commission of inquiry to report upon the trade union movement, with the following terms of reference:—

(1) the amalgamation or grouping of unions analogous to, or associated with, one another, within specific industries or occupations;

(2) to set up machinery for—

(a) co-ordinating the conduct of trade disputes (i) national or local, (ii) single-unit or multi-unit;

(b) to set up machinery of a permament arbitral character to decide on industrial demarcation and other inter-union disputes;

(3) to advise on rules to govern applications for affiliations by organisations to

(a) Irish Trade Union Congress and

(b) trades' or workers' councils;

(4) to inquire into the legal position of trades unions;

(5) to make recommendations for general organisation.

The Commission of Inquiry reported in November, 1938. I hope that Deputies who sometimes cavil at the length of time which a particular investigation involves will make note of the fact that this commission, set up in April, 1936, reported in November, 1938.

Mr. D. Morrissey

They did not promise to report in three months.

Mr. MacEntee

The delay was justified, I should say, by the difficulty of the question.

Mr. Norton

They did not suppress the report.

Mr. MacEntee

They did not circulate it broadcast either.

Mr. Norton

They circulated it to affiliated organisations at a cost of 1/- —which is more than was done with the Banking Report.

Mr. MacEntee

This is a minor diversion, and I should like to repeat that the commission of Inquiry reported in November, 1938. Its report showed that six members of the commission of 13 desired a radical reorganisation, that six others were not prepared to go so far, and one member abstained from expressing any view; that the members of the commission one and all, however, were agreed that some rule of law was required to bring order into the existing chaotic conditions cannot be denied. It is difficult to see how it could be otherwise in the light of the view set out in a memorandum submitted to the commission by certain representatives of the Irish Trade Union Congress. That memorandum, amongst other things stated:—

"(a) At the outset it must be realised that the complete implementation of Item 1 of the Terms of Reference means largely recasting the whole trade union movement. That some recasting is desirable cannot be doubted;

"(b) The position of the organised trade union movement, as represented by the Irish Trade Union Congress, cannot be considered satisfactory, either from the point of view of the members organised or the manner in which the whole trade union movement is split up into very small and often opposing unions;

"(c) An analysis of the strength of the various unions affiliated to Congress reveals a position which requires immediate attention. Only two unions have a membership exceeding 10,000; four unions have a membership of over 5,000; eight unions have a membership of over 2,000; 12 unions have a membership of over 1,000; four unions have a membership of over 500; while the balance—18 unions—have a member ship of less than 500 each. This position is not improved where many of the unions are identical in character or where two, and sometimes three, unions cater for the one craft or calling;

"(d) The elimination of inter-union disputes, if nothing else were secured, would bring relief to all concerned. Such disputes do a tremendous diservice to trade unionism and militate against that progress which should now be manifesting itself in the movement."

Unfortunately, notwithstanding the report of the Commission of Inquiry set up by the Trade Union Congress, notwithstanding subsequent further effort made in 1939 by the Congress to secure a more rational organisation of the workers, the trade union movement appears of itself to be unable to carry the matter further, and the evils which all admit exist must remain to curse and plague Irish industry unless some other power take action.

In these circumstances, the Government is bound to intervene by making such changes in trade union law as may reduce the incidence of trade union disputes generally and inter-trade union disputes in particular. If trade union disputes in general and inter-union disputes in particular are to be of rarer occurrence in the future, it is necessary, in my view, to eliminate irresponsible unions, and to place greater responsibility on trade unions for the discipline and general conduct of their members and to increase the power of the trade union executives with this end in view. As the position stands to-day, workers are able to abandon membership of one union and, by joining another, to add to industrial confusion. Naturally, unions are reluctant to take action even against the most irresponsible of their members if the taking of such action means that those members transfer their allegiance and strengthen rival organisations. A situation in which workers, if they desire to be members of a union at all, ultimately will have only a limited choice in this regard will, I believe, greatly improve the prospects of industrial peace.

In order to secure these objects, it is not necessary to proceed with drastic amendment or recasting of the trade union law. We can achieve our purpose by laying clear financial and other obligations and responsibilities on all bodies claiming to be entitled to negotiate on wages or conditions of employment, as this Bill proposes to do. By confining—as we do in this Bill —the new legislation to bodies which negotiate or purport to negotiate in respect of wages and conditions of labour, its effect is confined to trade unions as the term is ordinarily understood and to associations of employers who negotiate wages and conditions of work. We thus avoid interfering with many bodies which are at present registered as trade unions—for instance, the Petrol Distributors' Committee, the Dublin and Retail Tobacconists' Association, the Irish Bootmakers' Association, etc. They are not trade unions in the colloquial sense of the term. The position of such bodies and their rights will remain as heretofore, save that they will not be permitted to negotiate or purport to negotiate in respect of wages or conditions of employment.

The Bill now before the House consists of three parts. The first part contains the usual provisions as to title, definitions, regulation and expenses. Part II relates to the licensing of bodies to negotiate wages and conditions of employment, and provides that it shall not be lawful for any body of persons, not being an excepted body, to carry on negotiations for the fixing of wages or other conditions of employment unless such body is the holder of what is termed a negotiation licence issued by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. An excepted body may be any of the following—(a) a body which consists of persons employed by the same employer, not being a local authority, and which negotiates regarding wages or other conditions of employment with that employer only; (b) a civil service staff association recognised by the Minister for Finance; (c) any organisation of teachers recognised by the Minister for Education; (d) the Agricultural Wages Board, and (e) a trade board established under the Trade Board Acts. A negotiation licence will not be issued except to a body—in the Bill known as an authorised trade union—which fulfils both of the following conditions—(1) is registered under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1935, or is a trade union under the law of another country with its headquarters control situated in that country; and (2) deposits and keeps deposited with the accountant of the Courts of Justice the "appropriate sum," which varies according to the number of members of the union resident in this country, from £2,000, where the membership is not more than 2,000, to £10,000 where the membership exceeds 20,000. Anybody may apply for a negotiation licence, and on lodging the prescribed documents and the fee of £1 and showing to the satisfaction of the Minister that it is an authorised trade union, the Minister shall grant such licence.

Section 2 of the Trade Union Act of 1871 and Section 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, and the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, confer on trade unions the following privileges, that is to say, freedom from charges of conspiracy in connection with the proper organisation and prosecution of trade disputes, the right of peaceful picketing in trade disputes and freedom from actions of tort. These privileges will, under the Bill, be limited to authorised trade unions for the time being holding negotiation licences and will be withdrawn from all unlicensed bodies. Authorised trade unions, while holders of a negotiation licence must fulfil certain conditions as to membership rules and as to the maintenance of a register of members. In addition, extern trade unions must maintain an office within the State and furnish the Minister with information as to the rules, committee of management, trustees, secretary and other officers, such as is required for a registered trade union in this country.

The deposit to be lodged with the accountant of the Courts of Justice may be in the form of money or authorised investments. Investments may be varied at the request and cost of the depositor and the income derived from the investments shall be paid to the depositor. Authorised trade unions will be required under the Bill to furnish the Minister with statements as to the number of their members every three years.

A court judgement against a trade union which is a holder of a negotiation licence may be satisfied out of the deposits to be made under this measure and the trade union concerned shall within 14 days make good the deficit in the deposit caused by such satisfaction. The Minister may revoke a negotiation licence if satisfied that the holder has ceased to be an authorised trade union. Finally, the provisions regarding negotiation licences shall not come into force prior to six months after the passing of the Act.

Part III of the Bill relates to the establishment of a trade union tribunal and under it at any time not earlier than six months after the coming into force of the licensing provisions, the Minister for Industry and Commerce may establish a tribunal to be known as the trade union tribunal. The tribunal shall consist of a chairman, who must be a practising barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years' standing, and two ordinary members. The members of the tribunal, as is usual, shall hold office for such period as the Minister may determine and shall be paid such fees or other remuneration as the Minister for Finance shall determine.

The trade union tribunal is to consider applications from a trade union —mark you, from a trade union—which claims to have organised a majority, under Section 20, of the masters of a particular class and applies for a determination that it alone shall have the right to organise members of that class. The tribunal, having heard all interested parties, shall grant or refuse such application or, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds in the public interest for so doing, may determine that two or more specified trade unions alone shall have the right to organise masters of that particular class. Such determination in favour of two or more unions shall stand for at least 12 months during which no application for an alteration shall be made by any such trade union.

Under Section 21, like provision is made in connection with applications by trade unions representing workmen, with the addition that before making a determination in favour of a particular trade union the tribunal may require such trade union to satisfy it that the grant of such determination will not affect adversely any rights or claims to benefits enjoyed for the time being by any of such workmen as members of the trade union.

Under Section 22, the tribunal, before making its determination, may require a trade union, under penalty, to ascertain by ballot the views of the workmen concerned on the application. Where the tribunal determines that two or more trade unions shall have the right to organise masters or workmen of any particular class, no trade union other than that trade union or those trade unions so determined shall thereafter, so long as the determination stands, have the right to accept as a new member any master or any workman, as the case may be, in that particular class.

General Mulcahy

Would the Minister discuss the conflict between that and Section 20?

Mr. MacEntee

I am not prepared to discuss the conflict between any sections of this Bill, because I do not think there is any conflict. Under Section 24, the Minister may make regulations in relation to the times and places of sittings of the tribunal, the admission or exclusion of the public, and its procedure generally. Under Section 25, the tribunal shall have such powers to summon witnesses, examine them on oath, and to compel the production of documents as are vested in the High Court. Under Section 26, provision is made for the payment of fees by bodies making application to the tribunal. Under Section 27, the tribunal may award costs which it will also have power to tax. Under Section 28, the Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, appoint officers and servants of the tribunal to hold office upon such terms and at such remuneration as the Minister for Finance shall sanction.

To summarise the position, it is oped that the Bill, by requiring each union to lodge a deposit of at least £2,000, will lead to the disappearance, by amalgamation with or absorption into the sounder and stronger unions of a number of fissiparous and weaker unions before the licensing provisions begin to apply, six months after the passing of the Act. After that date, we believe that the tendency will be for unions to have recourse to the machinery of the trade union tribunal to regulate the enrolment of new members in particular unions and to regulate the activities of trade unions vis-a-vis each other. This, we think, should reduce very considerably the present overlapping and rivalry of trade unions and thus remove an unnecessary and senseless cause of industrial disputes.

The Bill treats Irish and British trade unions alike in so far as it is possible to treat unions with headquarters outside this country and purely Irish trade unions alike, and it gives the tribunal power to safeguard any accrued rights or claims to benefits enjoyed by members of any union which is refused permission to recruit new members. I believe that this measure will be welcomed, not merely by employers but also, on full and calm consideration, by all thoughtful trade unionists and workers who realise how full of peril for their cause the existing situation is. The Bill is not designed to hinder the growth and expansion of the trade union movement. Far from it. It is a sincere attempt to do for the movement what the movement knows must be done but has been powerless to do for itself, that is, to bring about its reorganisation upon an effective and rational basis. This Bill will not only promote a better discipline within the trade union movement; it will, I believe, promote better feeling. It will give to the movement machinery for settling those inevitable disputes which hitherto have been a source of strife and weakness to it and the cause of grave and serious loss to the community in general. That machinery could not be provided, as the failure of the Irish Trades Union Congress Commission fully demonstrated, by any organisation which was dependent for its existence upon the voluntary adherence of organised bodies, each with their own special interests to serve. It could only be provided by an independent agency which would have only one interest to serve: the cause of industrial peace in this country. The State provides such an agency in the form of the Trade Union Tribunal. Because I believe that this Bill will lead to the orderly development of the trade union movement in this country, because I think it will mean a diminution in the causes of industrial strife in this country, because I believe it will conduce to the economic welfare of the whole community, I recommend it to the House.

Mr. D. Morrissey

I move the amendment standing in the names of Deputy Mulcahy and myself:—

To delete all words after the word "That" and substitute the following words:—

"The Dáil declines to give a Second Reading to the Trade Union Bill, 1941, until such time as the Report of the Commission on Vocational Organisation and the evidence presented to that commission have been presented to the Dáil so that the legislative proposals may be considered and discussed in the light of the evidence placed before the commission and the commission's Report."

The Minister gave many reasons for the introduction of this Bill, but it is very remarkable that in the course of a fairly long speech, whilst he took care to refer to the commission set up by the Trade Union Congress, he refrained from making any mention whatever of the Commission on Vocational Organisation notwithstanding the fact that that commission took full and detailed evidence not only from representatives of the Trade Union Congress but from many of its constituent bodies. I want to say right at the outset that I agree absolutely that there is necessity for doing something to settle, as far as possible, the turmoil, rivalry, personal bitterness and personal jealousies that obtain and have obtained for a long number of years in the trade union movement in this country; but I am not satisfied that this is the time to do it in the absence of the evidence taken by the Vocational Organisation Commission and in the absence of its report and recommendations, nor am I satisfied that an emergency such as we are going through at present is the time to do it. This Bill, if it becomes law and is put into operation, will have very far-reaching effects on the whole economic structure of this country. There is hardly a doubt about that, but nobody knows what the economic structure of this country—or for that matter, any other country in the world —is likely to be six or twelve months from now.

The one thing that is evident to most people is that, as a result of this war, the economic and social conditions in this and every other country in the world will be radically and, perhaps, completely altered from what they are to-day.

The Minister in the course of his speech talked about inter-union rivalry and the poaching of members by one union from another as if all this trouble and difficulty, the starting and the prolongation of strikes were a matter of recent growth. Of course they are not. They have been going on for years, although I agree that conditions have been getting progressively worse. The Minister also spoke as if the blame and the responsibility for whatever has happened in an undesirable way over a number of years and particularly recently, could be placed exclusively on the small unions. I do not believe that that is so. The Minister also spoke as if all small unions in this country were undesirable unions. It is only fair to say that some of the best unions in this country are small unions, and it is only fair to say that some of the best unions in this country are unions which will be completely crushed out of existence by the terms of this Bill. I know there is a number of small unions in this country which are no help either to their members or to industry or to the country itself. I know that. I know some big unions and I doubt if they are any help to the country, but I know that there is a number of unions in this country, old established unions, which have protected the interests of their members, and not only have protected the interests of their members, but have made provision for them during their illness, and have made provision to a certain extent for a small superannuation when their working days are over. Neither the Minister nor the Bill gives us the slightest indication as to what is to happen to the funds of those unions, what is to happen to members who have been paying into superannuation funds for a number of years, or what is to happen to members who, through their contributions to those unions, have built up a right to certain benefits during illness. I do not want to develop those points at the moment; we can go into them in Committee.

It is admitted that this is a matter which has to be tackled. It is admitted, I think, by anybody who knows anything about the problem that it is a terribly difficult problem, and that it will take not only the efforts of the Government but the goodwill of all the people affected by this legislation to make it anything approaching a success. This is thought to be the time to bring that in. It is being brought in by a Government which, according to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, has not seen one line of the evidence submitted to the Vocational Organisation Commission, and has not read one line of that report even if it is in draft. According to the Parliamentary Secretary here last week the Government has not the vaguest idea of the lines upon which that commission will report. Are we to assume that the Government does not take the Vocational Organisation Commission seriously, or are we to assume on the other hand that it does not take this effort at legislation seriously?

The Minister talked about removing dangers. Is the Minister satisfied that when, under this legislation, he reduces the number of unions in this country to about half a dozen, he is thereby providing an insurance for the safety and security either of industry in the country or of the workers? I am not so satisfied. Frankly, if this Bill becomes law, I doubt very much whether we will not find ourselves in the position of having jumped from the frying pan into the fire. I doubt very much whether the position will not be, if anything, more serious. Does the Minister contend or does he believe that, when this Bill becomes law and the unions in this country have to comply with it, their number having been reduced, as I have said, to about half-a-dozen, the rivalry and the desire to poach will then finish? Even if the Minister believes that, there are a great many people who do not believe it. There are a great many people in this House and in this country who are quite well aware of the ambitions of certain people in the trade union movement here. Those are not ambitions of yesterday or the day before. We know quite well that this poaching has gone on for the last 20 or 22 years.

I know that of my own personal knowledge. We also know this, that, whilst there were tens of thousands of workers in this country unorganised, and completely at the mercy of employers in this country, the unions made no effort or very little effort to organise them, but spent all their efforts on trying to take from another union men who were already organised. Does the Minister think he is going to end that by bringing the number of unions down to the figure to which they must necessarily be brought by the size of the deposit? Let us take a union of 2,000 members; they must be in a position to deposit £2,000. If they have 2,002 members, they must be in a position to deposit £4,000. I know it would not be difficult for some unions in this country to deposit £4,000 or £10,000 or £50,000, but have we any guarantee that, by making unions such as those all-powerful in the country, we are making industry or the workers or the country itself more secure? Is it thought perfectly safe to place the whole of the trade union movement in the country in the hands of a few individuals? Is not the danger far greater?

I admit that we have had disputes —trade union disputes, if they could be so called—in this country in recent years which I think would be looked upon by many of the oldest and best trade unionists here as a disgrace. I admit further that, because of the inter-union rivalry, many of those disputes were prolonged far beyond the length to which they would ordinarily have been prolonged. I admit further that it is undesirable that we should have, as the Minister said, I think, 17 unions catering for one particular class of worker. Mind you, at the moment if there is a strike in Dublin it is localised to Dublin, and it would be very difficult to spread it throughout the whole of the State, but if this Bill becomes law, and if a strike starts in Dublin or in Cork or in Limerick or in Waterford, and it is going against the desires of certain people there, take care that we might not have it spreading until the whole country is involved. I am not saying, of course, that that is going to happen, but I think I am entitled to point out to the Minister the dangers on the other side. He apparently sees all the dangers on the one side. Apparently he is perfectly satisfied that when this Bill becomes law the trade union movement will be sounder and better and more trustworthy, almost perfect, that it will have fewer, if any, trade disputes, that if there are trade disputes they will not last very long, and that industries can be started and will be perfectly safe from strikes or disturbances.

I want to make a plea for certain small unions which are looking after the interests of classes of workers who are not very much sought after by some of the bigger trade unions, small local unions which have served the interests of their members very well and which have secured for their members decent conditions and decent wages, and have secured them in many cases without any dispute or rupture of industry. There is in a town in my constituency a local union, the membership of which is confined to the town. The membership numbers about 500 and the union caters for all the workers in the town, with the exception of postmen and railwaymen who belong to their own respective unions. That union has been in existence since 1931, and I can say that the ten years since that union came into existence have, from the trade dispute point of view, been the most peaceful and tranquil ten years remembered in that town for a long period. That union, as I say, secured decent conditions from the employers for their men through their organisation, and they are carrying on in a very straightforward way. They have built up little reserves, and they have the best possible relations that can exist between a body of workers and a body of employers; but immediately this Bill becomes law, they are wiped out. What guarantee have they under this Bill, firstly, that any union will seek to take them in and, secondly, that if they are taken into any particular union, their particular interests will be looked after in the way in which they have been looked after for the past ten years?

Let me give another case, and I am sure other Deputies can give similar cases. In my own constituency, there is an organisation of road workers, men employed by the county council, numbering 300, 400 or 500 men. They are, if you like, one group of employees, all employed by the county council, having their own union and appointing their own officers from their own membership, the men working on the roads beside them. They negotiate conditions with the county surveyor and his assistants or, if necessary, by appearing before the county council. They are wiped out under this Bill and they will have no further right to negotiate on wages, hours, or any other matters with the county surveyors or their assistants, or with the county council. There are in this city and in other cities small unions of craftsmen, some of them the oldest trade unions in the country, giving excellent service to their members, many of whom are men in a specialised trade and whose interests would not, and could not, properly be looked after by a great general union. If they cannot put down £2,000 or £4,000, as the case may be, they are wiped out.

I could go on giving instances, but let me come to this point: the Minister tries—I hope he will not be offended by the use of the word—to fool himself into the belief that this measure is going to bring peace and tranquillity, that it will be accepted by all thoughtful, reasonable men in the trade union movement, that all the splits, all the personal hatreds which have existed in the movement are going to be wiped out by the passage of the Bill. I see a far greater danger. I see the danger of the membership of all the unions wiped out under this Bill coming together under a leadership which might not be very desirable, and which might bring far more trouble to this city, to industry and the country than is being brought under existing conditions. The Minister ought not to blind himself to that danger, and he can get information on that aspect if he looks for it. The Minister ought not to deceive himself into believing that the Bill is going to remove the rivalry. It is not. The Minister said it was, but I say it is not.

Again, the Minister said that the object of the Bill was to eliminate the irresponsible unions. Who told the Minister that all the unions which the Bill is going to eliminate are irresponsible unions, and who informed him that the unions which will be able to comply with its provisions are fully responsible unions? If the Minister believes that, all I have to say is that he is ignorant of conditions in trade union circles here. That is the situation, as I see it, but if we are going to tackle this matter, if this House is ever going to pass legislation which will bring about the state of affairs which we all desire to see, it can only do so by approaching this matter in an intelligent way, and I submit that the House could approach this matter in a much more intelligent way, if we were armed with the report of the Vocational Organisation Commission and the evidence given before that commission. On what evidence, may I ask —the Minister did not tell us; he merely read briefly from the Trade Union Congress Inquiry's report—is the Government acting? From whom and from where did they get the evidence?

I may tell the Minister that I have a very uneasy suspicion, to say the least of it, as to where the inspiration came from and as to the hand behind the Bill. I am satisfied that this Bill as it stands, or as it can be amended, is not going to bring about the state of affairs which the Minister says the Government desire to see brought about. I ask the House in the interests of the trade union movement itself, in the interests of industry, perhaps in the interests of the country and certainly in the interests of peace, to pass the amendment and not to agree to pass the Bill. The Bill, I am convinced, will not only fail to remove the evils the Minister says he is anxious to remove, but will bring upon us evils which at the moment do not exist.

General Mulcahy

At this stage, I desire formally to second the motion.

Mr. Norton

I listened with considerable interest to the speech delivered by the Minister in introducing this Bill, and I could not help thinking that even the Minister must have known that the cases which he quoted, and quoted rather objectively, in support of it were based on an entirely fantastic foundation. The Minister told us of the public disorder, and chaos almost, caused by inter-union rivalry, of the fantastically exaggerated claim for increased wages and improved conditions made by certain unions in order to cause difficulties for rivals, but the Minister did not give us a single instance to support his contention, and if he had the vast amount of evidence he claimed to have to justify the introduction of a Bill of this kind, surely we ought to have got a concrete example from him, so that we might deal with the position instead of being treated to the kind of bogey-man statement upon which the Minister relied in recommending the Bill to the House.

The Minister was delightfully vague instead of giving us any specific instances of trade union rivalry resulting in the submission of outrageous claims for increased wages and refrained from giving us any example in the past two or three years of inter-union rivalry, in fact, causing any serious dislocation of public services or industry generally. Everybody who knows the trade union movement knows perfectly well that during the past couple of years there have been very few strikes. I do not believe that one of them was caused by inter-union rivalry, nor do I believe that any strike has been caused by exaggerated claims for increased wages, and yet it is a time when we have relative calm in the trade union movement, a condition of industrial peace, one might say, the Minister selects for the introduction of this Bill.

The country at present is passing through a serious crisis, a crisis which ought to encourage each and every one of us to generate the maximum measure of unity in order to get the maximum measure of co-operation and concord. Yet it is such a time the Minister selects for the introduction of a Bill which he knows is opposed, and will continue to be opposed, by the trade union movement. The Minister said that he believed this Bill would be welcomed by responsible trade union leaders, but he omitted to mention that at a special conference of executives of trade unions which was called recently by the Trade Union Congress a motion demanding the withdrawal of this Bill was passed unanimously and that not a single speaker at the congress voiced an opinion in favour of the Bill.

In the face of that fact, how does the Minister pretend to believe that the trade union movement welcomes this Bill, or that it will be looked upon with favour by any section of the trade union movement? What I should like to know is why the Minister at this stage should select this particular time to introduce a Bill which is of such an irritating character as this Bill appears to be? It has begotten and it will continue to beget a hostile reception by the trade unions. It will continue to beget their antipathy, and at a time of emergency like this, when it is so necessary to promote national unity, why does the Minister insist on throwing a Bill of this kind into the public arena so that it may create all the disunity and all the discord which this Bill is certainly going to cause in the trade union movement? He must have observed that not a single commendation of the Bill from any of the trade unions has appeared in the public Press, and that every comment that has been made upon it, whether in the public Press or at conferences has been to the effect that it is something that is not designed in the interests of trade unions.

What I am anxious to know is: is this just the first section of a very substantial link that is being forged to regiment the trade union movement in this country? Is it just one of a number of Bills? Is it part of a wider series of measures all dealing with the trade union movement, and is this the first effort to regiment the trades unions so that they may be in a better position to take the hand-cuffs when the Minister brings in further Bills? Is this all that is intended to be done to the trade union movement, or has the Minister further measures in mind for introduction at a later stage when he has prepared the ground by the introduction of this Bill? Trade unions have very good grounds for believing that this Bill was not designed out of regard for them or out of solicitude for their welfare. As has been pointed out already by Deputy Morrissey, in one fell swoop a very large number of unions will be wiped out under this Bill—unions in the rural areas that catered for workers on a regional basis. It will probably be impossible to find other unions to cater for the workers who at present are catered for by these small regional unions.

Many of these unions which exist here to-day are Irish unions which grew up out of the national struggle of 25 years ago. Many of them represent workers who were formerly organised in English unions and who, whether one agrees with their viewpoint or not, felt that if separation from an Empire was a justifiable national objective, separation from an organisation with its headquarters across Channel was equally desirable. A number of unions of that kind will now be wiped out over-night because, in the main, they are small organisations and will not have the necessary £2,000 to get a negotiating licence, and the Minister who, probably, cheered their formation 25 years ago, is now taking steps to wipe them out by legislation of this kind. Many of these unions, in fact, will now, probably, become compelled, by the action of the Minister, to go back into the organisations which they left 25 years ago—and left for reasons which the Minister then approved.

The Minister makes a lamentable blunder when he imagines that small trade unions are necessarily obstructive and irresponsible unions. Some of the smallest of these organisations in this country have, in fact, the longest history, and, very likely, an examination of their record and their method of conducting business would disclose that their standard of efficiency is no less high than the standard of efficiency of the larger unions. Some of the smaller unions have their origin in the days of the old guilds. Some have a history going back over 150 years.

They withstood every possible obstacle which threatened their existence during that long period, and it is left now, after such a long and honourable record, for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to wipe them out because of their inability to secure the necessary deposit for a negotiating licence. This deposit is also being exacted at a time when, through long-continued unemployment, the funds of these organisations are so low as to make it physically impossible for them to comply with the deposit test which will be imposed upon them by this Bill.

These unions feel—and I think they are justified—that the introduction of this Bill represents an attempt to regiment the unions, represents also an attempt to get away from the basis of voluntary membership which has been a feature of trade union organisation, and represents an attempt to have their ultimate destinies decided by a tribunal which may have no qualifications at all for understanding the economic origin and the purports and destinies of trade unions as known to the trade union movement itself. One of the most reprehensible features of this Bill is that, while pretending to reduce the number of unions, it is in fact opening the door for the establishment of even more unions of a very objectionable type.

Under the Bill provision is made for the exemption of an organisation which caters for workers, all of whom are employed by the one employer and, if the employer chooses to encourage his workers, as a condition of employment with him at a time like this when a work famine exists, to be members of a house or company union, then it is possible for that group of workers and for that employer to have that company or house union excluded from the scope of the Bill. A house union of that type will be permitted to carry on, under this Bill, all the negotiations it wishes, including the type of negotiation for which another organisation will have to pay £2,000 or go out of existence. Under this Bill it may happen that an organisation which has been in existence for over 150 years could be wiped out because it cannot pay £2,000. An organisation with an honourable record, with a long record of service to its members, may be wiped out because it may be unable to pay £2,000. But a house union can be formed the day after this Bill is passed and it can function here as a house union and will be permitted to do so without paying any deposit, while an established union with a long period of service to its credit may be wiped out.

How can the Minister attempt to justify a development of that kind while pleading that this Bill is in the interests of trade unionism? Every unscrupulous employer and every self-seeking employee who wants to promote the growth of a company union can do so and one of the attractions that will be held out for the company union is that it will not be necessary to make any deposit once you break up the larger movement into fragments of company unions and enable them to operate in that way. The fact that the Minister put that provision in the Bill clearly indicates that he is not at all concerned with reducing the number of trade unions, and he shows his hand very badly in that section of the Bill which makes it possible for company union organisations, which are detested wherever there is a decent trade union movement, to claim exemption from the scope of the Bill and from the payment of a deposit, though inability to pay the deposit on the part of another organisation of long standing may well mean its death.

The Minister has made a bad mistake in introducing at this stage a contentious measure of this kind. He ought to realise that this Bill is going to generate more hostility than any Bill affecting workers that has been introduced in recent times. The workers will regard this Bill as an attack on their free method of organisation and as an attempt to regiment and weaken trade unions. This is being done at a time when workers are being asked to make sacrifices, to make a contribution to the national unity, and at times the attitude of the workers in this regard begets the commendation of Ministers.

I agree with everybody else in the trade union movement that it may be desirable to reduce the number of unions, but I do not agree that this is the method by which it should be done. If it is desirable to reduce the number of unions, this is not the way to do it—to wipe out over-night a substantial number of unions which may not be able to raise the necessary deposits. If the Minister were wise he and some of the officials of his Department would utilise their positions to try to promote a scheme of voluntary amalgamation. I believe a scheme of voluntary amalgamation is much more likely to yield satisfactory results than a measure of compulsion of this kind. I was a member of the Trade Union Commission to which the Minister referred. I did not believe then, and I do not believe now, that you can in our time and in our circumstances regiment trade unions with the ease that the Minister thinks. The better way to approach this problem—and I said so in my memorandum—is to encourage the voluntary amalgamation of workers' organisations which are ripe for that type of amalgamation.

I believe the Minister is unwise in trying to push through a Bill of this kind without first encouraging voluntary amalgamation. If the Minister wants to get responsible trade union organisation developed in this country, if he wants to wipe out the possibility of small organisations starting in a capricious way for the purpose of causing difficulties, that problem will disappear with the voluntary amalgamation of the smaller organisations. Then you may impose new tests on any body of people who want to establish separate organisations which have no more substantial reason for their existence than that they want to annoy the parent organisation.

I believe the Minister is doing himself and the Government a disservice and definitely injuring the status of the trade union movement by putting this measure before the Dáil. The Minister would be well advised to reconsider the matter and approach it by the method of voluntary amalgamation rather than the compulsory amalgamation of unions such as is provided for in this Bill.

Mr. P.S. Doyle

I think that anyone who has been either directly or indirectly associated with the trade union movement for the past 25 years will admit that there is a great necessity for some type of reorganisation. There are some who consider that trade unionism should be abolished. I do not think that any Government elected by the people of this country would stand for anything of that sort. I might go so far as to say that trade unionism is a very essential thing for the community.

The benefits which trade unions generally provide for their members cannot be obtained by any other means. The Bill that I would like to see introduced would be one to make some provision for protecting the various classes or sections of craftsmanship by having them grouped in such a way that industrialists would be in close touch with craftsmen in their own industry. There should be grouping to prevent intrusion on the line of demarcation between respective trades or crafts. In that way there would be some advantage for the industries concerned. In the Bill the Minister proposes to group numbers. In my opinion, grouping on the lines laid down will have but one effect—to give a licence to all. My contention is that the Minister's statement urging the necessity for the Bill gives no protection in the way of preserving craftsmanship. I am sure the very competent staff that the Minister has at his disposal for dealing with disputes from time to time concerning intrusion by some groups on the work of others realise that that is not going to be ended by this Bill, but that it will be more evident in the future. In my view the best use should be made of trade unions to develop industries by some kind of co-operation between industrialists and unions dealing with crafts. The representatives of trade unions carrying on negotiations on behalf of a particular trade should be composed of members of that trade. At conferences at which I was asked to attend in recent years certain lines-of demarcation were laid down by particular groups such as engineers, plumbers, coppersmiths and brass finishers. Complications arose because at the head of some tribunals or conference there was not a person who was in a position to give a decision concerning a particular craft. With all respect to civil servants, technical training or experience of practical workmanship is required in such cases. Otherwise an opinion cannot be expressed as to whether or not one man is encroaching upon another man's work.

There has been too much intrusion in the past on the work of various crafts by members who were taken into the unions merely to make them members. That is the interference of which the Minister complains. Another matter that requires to be dealt with concerns the taking in of apprentices. I do not know what machinery the Minister proposes to set up to deal with that position. My attention was drawn recently to the case of a man in a particular trade, who happens to be an employer, and who has his son at the trade. He applied to have his son admitted to membership of the union but was refused. The young man is serving his time, and when he finishes at the end of five or six years, as he will not be accepted by the union, he cannot get employment. Some trade unions are closed boroughs, to which boys cannot be apprenticed because their fathers were not members of that particular union.

In some respects I appreciate the necessity for a conservative viewpoint, but I am afraid that eventually the country will not get the advantage to which it is entitled. There are many cases in which in order to make up for redundancy that occurs men have to be imported rather than have any deviation from the rules of a society. On the other hand there are trades that are crowded with young fellows who are unemployed. It is necessary to cope with that position in some way, other than that in which the Minister proposes by grouping numbers without giving consideration to the other important aspects. In what way has the Minister dealt with the composition of the members to constitute the 18 trade unions referred to by him in his opening remarks? I definitely object to the system under which it is proposed to set up the tribunal. I hold that men with technical or practical knowledge of trades should be available when required, and that there should be a panel from which members could be drawn, similar to what is done on other commissions set up by the Government.

I fail to see how the Minister hopes by this Bill to end the disputes to which he referred, and which no one wants to encourage. I do not know how the Bill will diminish disputes. The passing of the Conditions of Employment Act by the Minister's predecessor was to the detriment of the workers. It does not give the results that the workers expected. The serious flaw in it was that workers have lost the consolation that they always looked forward to, a continuity of employment. That was a serious blunder. In my opinion that was a serious mistake. I also feel that the introduction of this Bill in the form in which it has been presented is going to be very serious for members of trade unions, and I suggest to the Minister that, having regard to the protests that have been made, he should withdraw it. The Labour Party certainly know the opposition there is to it. There must be some ground for their opposition. I suggest to the Minister that he should withdraw this Bill and endeavour to get industrialists and others together to discuss some alterations in it, with a view to its presentation later in an improved form.

Mr. Keyes

I desire to support the amendment. I am not greatly enamoured of it, but the arguments that will be put forward in support of it may have the effect of deterring the Minister from pursuing the course that he has entered upon. We may ask ourselves, what is the reason for the existence of trade unionism? I wonder if the Minister has ever put that question to himself. Trade unionism, as we know it, goes back, as Deputy Norton pointed out, for more than 150 years. Long before that we had the old guild system. Trade unionism, in its present form, was conceived with the object of rescuing our people from a state of serfdom and actual slavery. During the period of its existence it has been recognised by the highest authorities, by all Christian-minded and moral-minded people, as a necessary weapon for the protection of those who have nothing to sell but their labour. In time the old guild system gave way to the craft union system. We have these craft unions with us still, I admit in diminishing numbers, but they are still there, and are one of the oldest links in the trade union movement. It is interesting to recall that they have survived the shocks of alien rule in this country, and that families associated with a particular craft have carried on the tradition of it from one generation to another. As Deputy Norton has pointed out, very little regard is being shown to those types of craftsmen to-day. It is now, unfortunately, a question of £ s.d. with too many who should be interested in the development of those crafts.

If one is to judge from the terms of this Bill it would seem as if those crafts should not have the right to exist any longer. That, surely, is a retrograde step, because those craft unions trace back directly to the old guild system, and have done their part to make manifest, even in our own day, some of its best features. They have done their part in preserving that heritage of artistic skill which has come down to us from the time of the guilds. Priceless specimens of the work done by those old craftsmen are still to be seen in the City of Dublin. We have examples of their work in the fine old houses in Parnell Square and in other parts of the city. Visitors who come to this city from other countries have again and again testified to the excellence of the work done by those craftsmen, and to the world-wide interest it has aroused. Apart from the goldsmiths, the silversmiths and different types of colour painters and printers, we have the members of many of those crafts associated in small unions of their own. They are jealous to preserve the traditions associated with their own particular craft. It would look as if that were now to be regarded as a crime, but their desire is to preserve their own identity. It would appear from this Bill that the acid test to be applied, as to whether they should be allowed to continue their age-long tradition, is to be this: whether they will be able to put down a sum of £2,000. If not, these old craft unions are to be considered unworthy of being entrusted with the task of negotiating on behalf of their members. That, surely, is a very unfair test to apply to any trade union.

One of the dangers that I see inherent in this Bill is that the fundamental right of a trade union to negotiate on behalf of its members is being assailed in this Bill —the right of trade unionists through their organisations to fight unscrupulous employers and to protect themselves against mean types of employees who would creep into positions at undercutting rates of wages. It is unfortunately true that there are many such. They forget that even the very low rates they are prepared to accept would not be there for them were it not for the fight put up by organised labour. That sort of thing is being played up to in this Bill. It is going to create an atmosphere that I suggest members of this House should not give any countenance to. In this machine mass-production age there is a tendency amongst employers to cut out the old skilled craftsman. That tendency will be encouraged in this Bill. The employers who adopt the get-rich-quick methods by doing everything possible to get men to work for them at the lowest possible figure will no doubt see their opportunities in this Bill. There are, of course, employers throughout the country who are prepared to pay fair wages but on the other hand we know that there are many who, while pretending to accept trade union conditions, are not ashamed to violate them. They hand envelopes to their employees which do not contain the recognised rates marked on the outside. We know that there are many employers holding their heads very high who do that sort of thing.

It has to be said, on the other hand, that you have mean types of employees who are prepared to accept under-cutting conditions of that sort. Evidence with regard to that could be given to the Minister. One great danger that I see in this Bill is that it proposes to set the hall-mark of authority on what is called the "house" union. That is a matter which will come up for discussion in another place next week. I wonder if the Government, by their proposals in this Bill, mean to suggest that the standards and conditions of workers in existing organisations are too high. I think, when we come to discuss the question next week, we will be able to prove that is their intention: that they want to make permanent in this Bill the possibility of under-cutting, and a lowering of the decent standards that have been won for trade unionists through their organisations. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. to Thursday, 5th June, 1941, at 3 p.m.