Committee on Finance. - Agricultural Workers (Weekly Half-Holidays) Bill, 1952—Committee Stage. – Dáil Éireann (14th Dáil) – Thursday, 20 Nov 1952

Committee on Finance. - Agricultural Workers (Weekly Half-Holidays) Bill, 1952—Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Mr. Dunne

I move amendment No. 1:—

In line 14, to delete all words after "shall" to the end of the section and substitute "be deemed to have come into operation on the 1st April, 1952.

As the Bill stands it is provided that it shall not come into operation after it becomes an Act, until a day which the Minister shall appoint by Order. The reason we are moving this amendment is because this Bill is a somewhat unusual measure. It is in substitution for a previous measure which was alleged to have been defective in so far as securing for agricultural workers the right to a half-holiday was concerned. It has been admitted in debate here that the principle of the half-holiday for agricultural workers was accepted by the Oireachtas, and was written into the Statute Book by the previous measure. In our view, the amending Bill or repeal Bill now before the House should have in it some degree of retrospection in so far as the entitlement of the agricultural worker to a half-holiday is concerned, otherwise the intent of the Bill of 1950 will have been completely vitiated, and agricultural employers who are not providing an agricultural half-holiday for their workers, will have been, in fact, evading the law, and no step will have been taken by us in this measure to make them comply with what the law was.

We are further reinforced in that view by statements made last year and early in the present year to the effect that it was proposed to bring in this legislation at an early date. I need only refer as one instance of that to the Debates of the 29th April of this year as reported in Volume 131, No. 4, in which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister, acting for the Minister, assured Deputy Mac Fheórais that the undertaking which the Minister had given some two months previously to the effect that this legislation would be introduced in one month's time would be carried out. It seems to us, therefore, no more than reasonable that the 1st April, 1952, should be the date on which this Bill should take effect and become operative. That is the purpose of the amendment and I think the House will agree, or should agree, that agricultural workers who have been deprived of this right by their employers, in flagrant violation of the law of the State, should be at least enabled by this Bill to claim retrospectively from those who employed them, the right to payment for the half-holidays which they were not allowed and which they should have been allowed.

Mr. Walsh

I must oppose the amendment, first of all, because it is unconstitutional to introduce penalties retrospectively in legislation. That is what the amendment seeks to do.

Mr. Desmond

I think the Minister's attitude is not helpful. I should like to know where we stand in regard to this, in view of the statement made by the Minister last February when he stated that it was his intention to introduce this Bill within a month. If the Minister had done that, then, of course, the agricultural workers would have been able to enjoy their half-day at a much earlier period. Even at the present time, we have not the faintest idea as to when the Minister will by Order, make it clear that these workers are entitled to their half-day. I think the attitude of the Minister is unjust and unfair, especially in view of the fact that when a committee was set up to consider this matter it was found by a majority, which came from the Minister's own Party, that there were weaknesses in the old measure which required to be remedied. The Minister himself found it suitable to attack faults that were in the old Act. These are facts that we must face up to. I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment in view of the fact that the people concerned do not know at the moment when they are likely to get the half-day to which they are justly entitled.

Mr. Burke

It is a great wonder to me why the Labour Party, when they had the power, did not put this machinery into motion themselves. Of course, there was a lot of bluff, and now it is being left to the present Minister to introduce a Bill to do for the agricultural workers what the Labour Party failed to do when they had the power. It surprises me that they did not make a good job of it. They seem to me to have failed completely to do so. I am very grateful to the Minister for taking steps to see that justice will be done to the agricultural workers. They surely are entitled to holidays the same as other sections of the community. I have no doubt that the Minister, supported by the Fianna Fáil Party, will see that justice is done to the agricultural workers. I am delighted at the honourable stand which the Minister is taking on this. He is not running away from it as his predecessor did, notwithstanding the fact that the Labour Party kept his predecessor in office.

Mr. Dunne

On a point of order. I desire to draw attention to the fact that we are discussing an amendment to the Bill and not the entire Bill which the Deputy seems to be doing.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment No. 1 is under discussion.

Mr. Dunne

I suggest to the Deputy that he should not get himself put out so early as the Herald reporter is not here yet.

Mr. Burke

I am grateful for the advice which I have got from my honourable colleague and hope to keep to the path of righteousness and rectitude. As I have said, I am sure the present Minister will see that justice is done to the agricultural workers, that they will get their holidays in due course, and that there will not be any bluff as there was by the previous Administration.

Mr. Cogan

I feel that it would be very unjust to seek to impose penalties on ordinary struggling farmers who did not provide a holiday for their workers during the past year. That was because their legal advisers informed them that under the Act passed last year there was no obligation on them to do so. Many of those employers are men in a very small way, and may have provided their workers with far more valuable concessions than those which were provided in the Act passed last year. I think it would be a gross injustice to impose penalties on them for failing to carry out an Act which was not legally binding on them. A far more serious aspect of the question is that, as the Minister has pointed out, it would be unconstitutional to impose penalties retrospectively. When this Act comes into force, it ought to apply to some time in the future and not to the past. I do not think that some of the leaders of the Labour Party, who live in or near the city, realise what a hard and keen struggle it is for the working farmer employing one or two men to make ends meet, not to speak at all of accumulating a sufficient bank balance to meet such a demand as that implied in the amendment.

He is now in the position, in connection with this amendment, of practising what he used to preach at one time. If I have travelled outside the scope of the amendment, I had better keep rigidly to it now as I have been warned twice. I maintain that where the farmers did not comply with the existing Act justice is now being meted out to the agricultural worker by making the payment to him retrospective from April last. We have heard from Deputy Cogan that making this retrospective is unprecedented in this House. We all know that certain legislation has been passed here from time to time that was retrospective and retroactive. Deputy Cogan does not give two hoots about the farm labourers or even about the farmers. There is only one person he cares about and that is Deputy Cogan.

I am sure that the Minister in dealing with this will be very fair. I appreciate his difficulties. It is not the same as if he were dealing with civil servants or officials of local authorities or people who are more or less in continual employment with the employment register being kept for them, but I am sure there is some way of dealing with the matter. Such a gesture would be appreciated by the people who would benefit by it, namely the agricultural workers. If he cannot go the whole hog, perhaps he may be able to do something. As I said, I may not see eye to eye with my colleagues in this, but we are allowed free discussion under the democratic rights of our Party and we can say things which perhaps other back benchers cannot say because there would be penalties enforced and admonitions given.

Mr. Dunne

They might not be renominated.

Mr. Keane

I would not go so far as that.

The Minister could give this very careful consideration and he need not be too worried about the financial position of the people concerned. He probably had the information before I had that good stores went £6 per cwt. in the Dublin market yesterday. That is not bad. It is a credit to the Minister and a credit to his predecessor, too. Whatever any Deputy may say, let him be independent, conservative or reactionary, agriculture has stepped up and the farmers have stepped up to an amazing degree in the past few years. I give a certain amount of credit for that to the Fianna Fáil Government which was in office prior to 1948 also.

Mr. Davin

Deputy Burke will be good enough, I am sure, to come in and give this section his blessing and it will then come into operation without any difficulty. The Minister asserted that the amendment is unconstitutional. That is a very serious word to use. I wonder where he got that information or advice? Probably from some of the so-called constitutional lawyers who have misled this Government in the past on other and more important matters.

Mr. Fanning

I cannot for the life of me understand the Labour members' attitude to this amendment. Coming from the country I know the hardships of farmers and the hardships of agricultural workers too and I have as much regard for the workers as any Labour member in this House. It seems very unjust and unfair to try to make this provision retrospective when the Bill was never enacted. I wonder do they realise the hardships of a tillage farmer with a young family who employs three or four workers. It is not all sunshine at the present time. They are not rolling in riches as some of us are led to believe.

Mr. Dunne

Hear! Hear! The Minister says they are.

Mr. Fanning

Therefore I think it is very wrong of Labour members to put in any amendment whatsoever. They are not satisfied at the Bill going through at all—that is the trouble— because it is going through during the term of a Fianna Fáil Government. I would ask them to be more considerate.

Mr. Walsh

I have listened to Deputies Davin and Keane. I did not think that we were going to travel over the Second Stage again but apparently that is what we have been trying to do. The amendment, as I have already stated, is unconstitutional. I thought that it might be left at that and that we would not have a further debate. Going back for a moment, we know quite well that the Bill was unworkable. I am sure that Deputy Dunne knows that. No provision was made to have it carried out. I will not start to criticise Deputy Dunne again but he must have known that.

Mr. Dunne

Did you not know it?

Mr. Walsh

I did not.

Mr. Dunne

You did. Were you not on the Select Committee?

Mr. Walsh

In regard to the Minister's contention that it is unconstitutional it seems to me that it is difficult for him to prove that point. It may very well be true that a new piece of legislation, if introduced in the House with retrospective penal clauses of a kind which are embraced in this Bill, would indeed be unconstitutional, and rightly so. But in this case we are dealing with a piece of legislation which is replacing another piece. This section as it stands is an escape hatch for the employers of this country who have not abided by the law of this country for the past year and a half. It enables them to get away with the robbery of the agricultural workers' right to a half-holiday since the Act of 1950 was signed by the President. No matter what may be said by the Minister or by his colleagues in their effort to mislead the people in regard to previous and present legislation, in regard to this amendment and to this section, the fact of the matter is that a Select Committee of this House, upon which the Minister sat, upon which Deputy Cogan sat and upon which there sat the majority of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party, had a considerable hand in the framing of the previous Bill. If there was sabotage of any kind it is not hard to discern from what quarter it came, because there was at all times prejudice on the part of the present Government Party against enacting such legislation.

Let us be frank about it, the reason why this amendment is being opposed by the Minister is quite obvious. The reason is that the agricultural workers are in a minority in this country. They represent only one-quarter of the agricultural population and those who own land, whether they be farmers or the families of farmers, are in the majority. Therefore, they have a greater voting strength, and play is being made by the Government for votes, not on considerations of justice, but simply on considerations of political expediency That is the brutal, frank truth of the whole matter.

It is a sad commentary on our democracy to say that our standards of justice are to be guided by weight of numbers rather than by the fair considerations that should persuade us in one direction or another. However, I do not propose to delay the House unduly on this amendment. If it is contended that the amendment as it stands is unconstitutional, the Minister at least could make the present Bill operative from the moment of its final enactment. I propose to withdraw this amendment and introduce on the Report Stage an amendment to the effect that the Bill shall become operative on the date of its signature by the President.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dunne

I move amendment No. 2:—

In sub-section (1), between lines 19 and 20, to insert a new definition as follows:—

"week-day" does not mean Sunday.

This is a very simple matter although it has been the subject of comment again in uninformed quarters. Deputy Davin, in the course of his speech on the Second Reading, referred to the need for an amendment of this kind. Peculiar though it may seem to some political pundits, as the law stands and as this section stands, Sunday can be regarded as a week-day. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the agricultural worker who is employed seven days per week will not be simply given a half-day on Sunday as his half-day under the Act.

It is also intended to ensure that agricultural employers will not find it possible to evade the Act. It is simply an amendment to define exactly what is meant by a week-day. A week-day should mean any of the days from Monday to Saturday, inclusive. The Minister should realise the necessity for this amendment and should accept it. It is a very simple matter.

Mr. Walsh

This amendment is unnecessary. In the Interpretation Act of 1937 the word week-day is defined as not Sunday, so there is no necessity to define it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 2 and 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Mr. Davin

I move amendment No. 3, which is in the names of Deputies Mac Fheórais, Dunne, Desmond and Davin:—

To add to the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section where the employer fails to fix the week-day on which the half-holiday is to be taken, Saturday shall be the half-holiday.

On Second Reading I gave good reasons for the insertion of this amendment in the Bill. No matter how much we may agree to differ on other matters, I am sure the Minister will agree that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, should be understood, without the necessity for legal interpretation, by farmers and agricultural labourers and that as few loopholes as possible should be left in a measure of this kind that might be the cause of litigation or, which would be far worse, the cause of misunderstanding between employer and worker. I hope the Minister, without further argument, will see the necessity for this amendment.

Mr. Walsh

The 1951 Act provided that where an agricultural worker and farmer agreed that the half-day would not be taken in a particular week it could be carried over until the next week. In this Bill, I believe, every week should stand on its own and the half-day should be taken within the week.

Mr. Dunne

What is meant by the amendment is that where the employer and worker fail to agree and where the employer fails to fix—that is where both possibilities are excluded—the half-day automatically shall fall on Saturday. That is what is meant by the amendment.

Mr. MacCarthy

If it is not already taken, it must be on Saturday.

Mr. Dunne

The Bill provides that the day shall be fixed by agreement between employer and worker or, if there is no agreement, by the employer. Where neither of these two things happens, we are endeavouring by this amendment to provide that Saturday shall then be the half-day.

Mr. Walsh

I would oppose fixing any day in particular. If the employer and the employee do not agree, a more suitable day might be found. There are many arguments as to why it should not be on Saturday. Monday may be as suitable for both parties. In this case, the employer, apparently, has the right of saying that the half-day shall be on such and such a day. That has been laid down in the Bill. But, if the employer and employee are unable to agree, it may be more suitable for the farmer to say: "Let the half-day be Monday or Wednesday." Why state in the Bill that it must be Saturday if there is not agreement? There is no reason for it. On Second Reading, Deputy Dunne put forward the argument that Saturday is generally accepted as the half-day all over the country. There is no reason why it should be. It might be far more suitable to have it on Friday. Deputy Dunne cited the case of an agricultural worker being paid and perhaps wishing to accompany his wife to the town to get the groceries, and so forth. That does not happen to any great extent. Deputy Dunne knows that as well as I do. Possibly, the worker might prefer to have it on some other day. I would not say that Saturday is the most suitable day for either the farmer or the agricultural worker. I would not like to make it a fixed day.

Mr. Davin

Mr. Dunne

On a point of order, I think that the Minister and Deputy Cogan are under a misapprehension about what is meant by this amendment.

Mr. Sweetman

I think there has been a general misapprehension as to the interpretation of both the section and the amendment.

Mr. Dunne

Just for the sake of clarity and in order that we may not be wasting our time, may I point out that the section reads:—

"The week-day on which the half-holiday is allowed under this Act shall be fixed by agreement between the employer and the worker in respect of each period of three months, or in respect of the period of employment (where that period is less than three months), but in the absence of such agreement, the employer may himself fix in respect of a period of three months, or in respect of the period of employment (where that period is less than three months), the week-day on which the half-holiday is to be taken."

The amendment is designed to secure that, if there is no agreement between the employer and the worker and if the employer does not fix the day as provided by this section, Saturday shall be the day. Otherwise there is no day at all, no half-holiday at all will be specified.

Mr. Sweetman

In the section at present it is not clear.

Mr. Walsh

Why Saturday?

Mr. Dunne

I do not care if you vary it to suit the different areas in the country, where Wednesday or Monday may be the suitable day. I can assure the Minister that so far as the best part of Leinster is concerned and a good part of Munster, Saturday would be the most suitable half-day for the workers. There are certain areas— possibly Waterford and South Kilkenny —where Wednesday or Thursday would suit. In Wexford, Thursday may be most suitable, as that day is the half-day normally for various business purposes. Saturday has come to be accepted generally, however, though not 100 per cent, as the most suitable half-day and that is why we specify Saturday.

Mr. Cogan

I do not think that what Deputy Dunne has introduced now is anything in the nature of a point of order. It may be a point of explanation of this amendment. Before he intervened, I was dealing with the idea of fixing Saturday, even in the absence of agreement. It is not always easy to secure agreement on a matter of this kind. I think it is wrong to fix rigidly in the Bill a definite day. The section is broad enough and wide enough at present. It provides that there shall be agreement, if possible, and in the absence of agreement that the employer shall fix the day. That is essential.

There are two types of farmer—the large farmer and the small farmer. The smaller man would be in difficulty if there were a complete closing down of work, as it would throw the entire burden on him for a day and a half. For him it would be better to have the half-day standing out on its own somewhere in the middle of the week. The bigger farmer is quite a different proposition, as he has to stagger the half-day over the week, so as to provide that all the workers will not take it on the same day. That is more difficult, as it is not easy to get agreement not only between the employer and the worker but amongst the workers themselves, as to what particular day should be chosen. In that case you have to leave it to the employer, if he is to have any say in the management of his farm, to allocate the half-day as between his workers in such a manner as will cause the least inconvenience to the working of the farm. As everyone realises, the farm work must go on. The employer must be given discretion to see that, for instance, if he has four men they will not walk off on the same day but a special day will be given to each.

Even if we were to debate this for hours, I do not think we could improve on the section. Even Deputy Sweetman, who claims to have a very clear brain on this matter, could not claim to make any improvement which would make this a more workable section. Certainly fixing rigidly Saturday as the half-day would not do it. If anything is to be fixed rigidly, the first half holiday of the week would probably be more acceptable to the single agricultural worker. We all know that dancing has become very popular and young agricultural workers find it very hard to start on Monday morning. If we are to meet the convenience of all parties, I think the first half holiday of the week rather than the last would be the more acceptable.

Mr. Sweetman

It does not need a very clear brain to appreciate that Deputy Cogan has completely misunderstood the section and the amendment.

Mr. Cogan

There would be postmasters who also claim to be farmers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order, order!

Mr. Cogan

I did not introduce the question of Baltinglass.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Keane is in possession and he should be given an opportunity of saying what he has to say.

Mr. Keane

I do not mind those interruptions, Sir.

Mr. Cogan

I think the Deputy enjoys them.

Mr. Keane

There is this much in Deputy Cogan's favour. He is subject to a lot of interruptions himself when he speaks. Let us assume that there are four men working for a farmer. Again, there must be agreement, first of all, among the men who are working. I certainly would strongly advocate that the whole four would not take the one half-day. I do not believe they would. I believe the agricultural worker is more alive to his responsibilities than most Deputies who are supposed to be advocating his case in this House. Those half-holidays could be staggered after agreement between the employer and employee.

According to the amendment, the power should be given to the Minister when there is no agreement. The Minister is shirking that power in my opinion in the section. He is switching the responsibility to the farmer that when there is no agreement the farmer will be the arbitrator and have the last word. I think that is a new departure in this House for Deputy Thomas Walsh, the Minister for Agriculture. Everybody gave him credit up to this for having great courage. I hope we will not be disillusioned all of a sudden and find out that he is funking an issue where he should undoubtedly have the last word.

I think that would be a most objectionable feature.

If he fails to secure agreement, but if, in the absence of agreement, he fails to exercise the right conferred on him to fix the day in advance, the amendment comes into operation. The Minister has pointed out that there is no necessity for this amendment and that it might possibly do harm. The position now is that if the farmer and worker fail to agree on what is to be the half-holiday for a period of three months, the farmer can fix the day. Only if he fails to do that can this amendment take effect, but under the section as it stands without the amendment, if the farmer fails to perform that function of fixing the day, he will be liable to prosecution. That is the position, and I think it better to leave it as it is.

I do not think any farmer will fail to fix the day. No farmer will prefer prosecution to fixing a day and it is a more business-like arrangement. He will meet his worker at the beginning of the period and say: "We have to arrange what is to be the weekly half-holiday for the next three months, or whether there is to be a weekly half-holiday or whether you will accept payment in lieu." If they fail to reach agreement after discussion, the farmer will fix the half-holiday for each week of the coming three months. That is a perfectly business-like arrangement and one which every farmer will try to implement. There is no necessity for introducing this idea of a Saturday, which might be completely wrong and, I think, would be completely wrong from an agricultural point of view.

I want strongly to repudiate the suggestion that I in any way speak for or represent the large farmers only. I am a small farmer myself, a very small farmer and the majority of my supporters, of the people who vote for me and work for me in elections, are small farmers, small working farmers on the Wicklow mountains. These are the people I rely on. The larger ones are a very small minority, and while I understand their position and appreciate those of them who are good employers and carry on, as many of them do, intensive farming on their larger farms, I am much more familiar with the needs and interests of the smaller farmers.

Mr. Desmond

Mr. Dunne

It is conceivable that the implementation of this Bill will bring about a certain amount of discontent. Every piece of legislation which regulates the relationships between employers and employees does invariably cause some discontent even for a short period. If the legislation is progressive both sides chafe at the restrictions and qualifications imposed upon them.

We are suggesting something very simple here. It is obvious that there will be cases where the farmer will not be willing to implement the Act. It is equally obvious that there will be cases where farmers will be ignorant of the existence of the Act. We have all had experience of that in our own constituencies where one finds on occasion an alarming ignorance as to what has been legislated upon and what the law is in relation to various matters.

Where agreement cannot be reached and where the farmer fixes no day for the purpose of defeating the Act a day should be fixed by law. If that is not done a considerable period may elapse during which no half-day will be granted. The longer that period lasts the longer the worker will be without the benefit of his half-day, the more difficult it will be to secure retrospective payment, the more costly it will be on the State and the more reluctant the worker will be to take any steps because of the relatively large sum that might be involved in a period of perhaps two years' retrospection. It is these considerations that have prompted us to put down this amendment. I think it is necessary. I do not believe it is contentious.

The farmer will have full liberty to suit his own convenience. Where the farmer refuses to suit even his own convenience we want to compel him to give a half-day on Saturday. In that way we are protecting the worker from having to do without his legal rights over an extended period. If the Minister will consider the amendment favourably between this and the Report Stage, we will not press it to a division now. I assure him that if the amendment is not accepted we will press it to a division on the Report Stage. I think it should be accepted.

Mr. Walsh

I will consider the amendment between this and the Report Stage and I will deal with it then.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Davin

With the right to reintroduce at a later stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Sections 4 and 5 put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Mr. Desmond

I move amendment No. 4, which stands in the names of Deputies Davin, Dunne, Mac Fheórais and Desmond:—

In line 8 to delete "forty-five" and substitute "forty."

We are not going so far in this amendment as to suggest that the conditions which apply in industrial and commercial life should apply in this case. According to Section 6, an agricultural worker will be entitled to his half-day if—but only if—he works 45 hours preceding that half-day. That represents nine hours per day for the preceding five days. Our difficulty is that it could easily happen that, within the five-day period before the half-day, a farm worker might, of necessity, have to attend a funeral or take a half-day at his own expense for some important reason or other.

We are not suggesting that, within the five days, a worker should get a half-day at his employer's expense, but anybody can envisage the possibility of a worker having to take a half-day off at his own expense. In commercial life and in industry in Cork City, for instance, the half-day is Wednesday. If a worker is out ill on the Monday or Tuesday he still gets his half-day on the Wednesday. I feel that we should consider the worker to the degree of obtaining some flexibility in regard to the half-day in the week in respect of illness, attendance at a funeral or attending to business of his own at his own expense. That is the whole purpose behind the amendment which seeks to reduce the number of hours from 45 to 40. I believe that the matter could easily be arranged between the employer and the employee. Over a 12-months period, I am sure that such a thing would seldom occur. It could easily happen that, by law—not just by the wishes of his employer—the worker would be denied the right of the half-day within that period.

Mr. Dunne

There is no need for any heat nor is there any need to be unreasonable in regard to this measure. Surely it will be admitted that there must be some specific number of hours fixed as the hours to be worked, if the half-holiday is to be granted. In this amendment introduced by the Labour Party there is provision for a 40-hour week instead of the 45 hours which it is proposed to fix by the Bill. If a man is out for two days, he would not be entitled to a half-holiday even under the Labour amendment so that it is no use in putting up that type of case. I think that the provisions of the Bill mark a very substantial step forward so far as the rights of the workers are concerned and a very substantial concession on the part of the employers. I think in view of the concession that has been granted, the Bill should be accepted in a fair and reasonable spirit. I do not think the Labour Party will secure any support from any section of the House for their violent attacks on the farming community.

Mr. Davin

Violent attacks?

Mr. Cogan

They are seeking to represent the farmers as brutal tyrants who will not allow their workers a day off, even for the purpose of attending the funeral of a relative. I think that is a gross misrepresentation of the attitude of the farming community and I strongly condemn it. I do not think it will be supported by any Party in this House outside the Labour Party or by any section of the community.

Mr. Dunne

Go down to Coolattin and say that.

Mr. Cogan

Even the farm workers do not approve of that line of argument. I have not met any farm workers who would allege that the ordinary decent farmers are tyrants of that description.

Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted, stand part of the Bill"—put.

The Committee divi ded: Tá, 70; Níl, 21.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Gerald.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Breen, Dan.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Thomas.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Buckley, Seán.
Burke, Patrick.
Butler, Bernard.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carter, Frank.
Childers, Erskine.
Cogan, Patrick.
Colley, Harry.
Collins, James J.
Corry, Martin J.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Crowley, Honor Mary.
Crowley, Tadhg.
Davern, Michael J.
Derrig, Thomas.
de Valera, Vivion.
Duignan, Peadar.
Fanning, John.
Flanagan, Seán.
Flynn, John.
Flynn, Stephen.
Gallagher, Colm.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Giles, Patrick.
Harris, Thomas.
Hillery, Patrick J.
Hilliard, Michael.
Hughes, Joseph.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kenneally, William.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Lehane, Patrick D.
Lemass, Seán.
Little, Patrick J.
Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
McCann, John.
MacCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Maher, Peadar.
Moylan, Seán.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
Ormonde, John.
Rice, Bridget M.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Sheldon, William A.W.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Traynor, Oscar.
Walsh, Laurence J.
Walsh, Thomas.

Níl

Belton, John.
Byrne, Alfred.
Byrne, Thomas N.J.
Cafferky, Dominick.
Costello, Declan.
Davin, William.
Desmond, Daniel.
Donnellan, Michael.
Dunne, Seán.
Everett, James.
Finan, John.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Hickey, James.
Keyes, Michael.
McAuliffe, Patrick.
McGilligan, Patrick.
McMenamin, Daniel.
Murphy, Michael P.
Norton, William.
O'Leary, Johnny.
Spring, Dan.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea; Níl: Deputies Dunne and Hickey.

Question declared carried.

Section 6 agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dunne

We are opposing Section 7, which reads:—

"Where, as respects any particular week, the day on which the half-holiday is to be allowed under this Act to an agricultural worker falls on a holiday allowed to him under the Act of 1950, on a Church holiday or public holiday allowed to him by arrangement with his employer or on a day on which the worker is otherwise absent from work, he shall not be entitled to a half-holiday in that week."

We felt that this section can be used by individuals to evade the effect of the entire Bill. The second half of this section alludes to the possibility of a Church holiday or public holiday being allowed to an agricultural worker by arrangement with his employer. There is no reference whatsoever there to the question of whether or not the worker is paid for such Church or public holiday. There are certain districts in this country, notably the diocese of Ferns, for instance, where Church holidays are also regarded as being in the nature of public holidays and where work ceases on the land on such days. There are probably other examples of that. It will be found in individual cases at least that for such days as workers are required to take a holiday—and they do so I may say of their own free will because of their respect for the tradition and customs of the districts in which they reside—they receive no payment. This section provides that in such cases the workers shall be deprived of the right to the half-holiday.

In many districts farmers themselves avail of public holidays to go about their own recreations and require that workers should also take a holiday on public holidays and instances will be found where workers are not paid for such public or Church holidays.

This section lays down that in a week where such a holiday occurs, a half-holiday will not be made available to the workers. We think that that is bad. It also specifies that if in any week a holiday falls due to a worker under the Act of 1950, the worker will not be entitled to a half-holiday in that week. I take it that that refers to the Holidays Act of 1950 and that it is a necessary legislative arrangement. I should like some clarification of it, but I take it that, in so far as it does not refer to the staggering of annual holidays, it is simply a necessary legislative reference. What I am principally concerned about is the possibility that workers who are required to take a Church or public holiday, and who are not paid for such a holiday, will be deprived of their right to a half-holiday with pay. It is on that ground that I oppose this section. I do not see any advantage in the section. It restricts still further the operation of the Bill and makes it still more difficult for agricultural workers to enjoy a half-holiday, and it is on these general premises that we object to the section.

Mr. Walsh

I am not concerned with the merits or demerits of holidays with pay. I am not concerned with whether a man is paid or not. What I am concerned with is that when the half-holiday that has been arranged falls on a day which is a Church holiday or a public holiday or a holiday that is due to the worker, no half-holiday will be available. That is all that is in it.

Mr. Desmond

If such is the case, will the Minister explain to the House the meaning of the end of the section where it says: "or on a day on which the worker is otherwise absent from work, he shall not be entitled to a half-holiday in that week"? Allowing for the fact that we are not supposed to know the circumstances and the conditions prevailing in rural Ireland, may I inform the Minister that there are areas where large landowners do not pay their workers for a Church holiday and give them no recompense, and if a worker is out sick on a day during the week there is no allowance for him from the employer and no national health benefit? There is quite a number of landowners of that type in this country and they have been coming into this country recently in large numbers.

This is a new situation altogether.

Mr. Davin

It is indeed.

Mr. O'Leary

The Minister mentioned the county council workers. They are industrial workers within the meaning of the Act and if they work the half-day they receive extra payment. County council workers work 48 hours a week and they are paid overtime for Saturday and their cards are stamped. That puts them in a position as industrial workers and you are mixing them up with the agricultural workers.

Mr. Walsh

I am not. I have just stated their case.

Mr. O'Leary

You told the House before the summer recess that you would introduce a Bill to make the previous Act workable, whereby the agricultural worker, if he worked the half-day, would be paid for it. You are getting away from that.

Mr. Corry

I would like to see this matter cleared up in justice to those concerned. If a man works 45 hours in any week he is entitled to a half-holiday, or if he wants to work the half-day he is entitled to be paid for it. I am glad that a happier position exists now than existed under the previous Bill where the worker had to work 50 hours a week. I would like to give credit to the Minister for improving the position in that respect. Apparently Deputy Dunne and Deputy Desmond seem to find a different class of farmers from what we have been accustomed to in my part of the country, because there has always been what you might call a give-and-take policy. I have never seen a man's pay stopped for a Holiday of Obligation. I have always seen him getting his week's pay as when he worked for the full week. He is entitled to his half-day's pay even though he is absent for the full day, and I think that that principle should be included in the Bill. I am relying on the Minister to safeguard the workers in this connection. They are the worst paid section of our community. All Governments here from time to time seem to think that an employee is a man who should produce something for half nothing. I would urge on the Minister to rectify this situation.

There is another case where a man is out sick for a day. If he works the 45 hours of the week he is entitled under this Act to a half-day's pay. I believe that the two principles to which I have referred should be safeguarded in the Bill so that fair play will be given to everybody.

Mr. Cogan

Mr. McGilligan

About one-third of North-West Dublin.

Mr. Burke

Deputy McGilligan should be seen and not heard as far as the workers are concerned.

Mr. McGilligan

I was seen several times in North-West Dublin.

We suggest that there will be cases of individuals who will be allowed, if you like, a public holiday or a Church holiday without pay. If the half-holiday coincides with such holiday they will be deprived of their half-day.

Mr. Allen

That does not come under this section then. There is no necessity for providing for them at all as they have been provided for already elsewhere in the Bill.

Mr. Dunne

It comes under this section in so far as the employer can argue out of the section that the agricultural workers are not entitled to a half-day on that particular week-day. The Deputy should cling to one line of thought and try to help the Minister. Deputy Burke has arrived back in the House now and I am sure he will clear up the whole business.

Mr. Desmond

Mr. Cogan

Does the Minister consider that a man who has worked 45 hours in the five days prior to the date agreed in respect of the half-holiday will get the half-day regardless of the fact that he might have worked in the forenoon on the half-holiday?

Mr. Walsh

Yes.

Mr. Cogan

I am satisfied.

Question put: "That Section 7 stand."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 36.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Gerald.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Thomas.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Buckley, Seán.
Burke, Patrick.
Butler, Bernard.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carter, Frank.
Cogan, Patrick.
Colley, Harry.
Collins, James J.
Corry, Martin J.
Crowley, Honor Mary.
Crowley, Tadhg.
Davern, Michael J.
Derrig, Thomas.
de Valera, Vivion.
Duignan, Peadar.
Fanning, John.
Flanagan, Seán.
Flynn, John.
Flynn, Stephen.
Gallagher, Colm.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Harris, Thomas.
Hillery, Patrick J.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kenneally, William.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Lemass, Seán.
Little, Patrick J.
Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
McCann, John.
MacCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Maher, Peadar.
Moylan, Seán.
Ó' Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
Ormonde, John.
Rice, Bridget M.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Sheldon, William A. W.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Walsh, Laurence J.
Walsh, Thomas.

Níl

Belton, John.
Cafferky, Dominick.
Carew, John.
Collins, Seán.
Corish, Brendan.
Costello, Declan.
Crotty, Patrick J.
Davin, William.
Desmond, Daniel.
Donnellan, Michael.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Dunne, Seán.
Everett, James.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Hession, James M.
Hickey, James.
Hughes, Joseph.
Keyes, Michael.
Larkin, James.
Lynch, John (North Kerry).
McAuliffe, Patrick.
McGilligan, Patrick.
Mannion, John.
Morrissey, Daniel.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, Michael P.
Norton, William.
O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
O'Leary, Johnny.
O'Reilly, Patrick.
O'Sullivan, Denis.
Palmer, Patrick W.
Roddy, Joseph.
Spring, Dan.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tully, John.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea; Níl: Deputies Dunne and Hickey.

Question declared carried.

Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Mr. Dunne

I move amendment No. 5:—

Before Section 10 to insert a new section as follows:—

It shall be an offence under this Act for an employer to dismiss a worker for having asserted his legal right to the weekly half-holiday and the employer shall be liable on summary conviction thereof to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.

I think this is a very necessary provision. Under the operation of existing Acts which govern the rates of wages payable to agricultural workers, it has been found on occasion that when an agricultural worker has recourse to his legal right of reference to the wages board and where that action on his part brings about a court case, that worker has subsequently been dismissed by his employer. That practice is not widespread but it is fairly general. We have come across quite a substantial number of cases of that type and there is no protection for the worker under the Acts to which I have referred. One cannot do anything about it. It just happens that way and that is all.

It seems to me that unless the present Bill contains such a proviso as this the operation of the Bill may be in danger of being completely frustrated. The presence of such a section as this will have a very sobering effect, to say the least of it, upon any employer who may have the intention of dismissing a worker compelled by circumstances to take the necessary legal steps to enforce his right to a weekly half-holiday. I do not want to refer to the recent history of the previous Bill except to say that it is within the knowledge of Deputies that there have been cases of the kind I have described. There was one very glaring case where three workers representing some 15 or 16 employees took action in the courts to establish their right to a weekly half-holiday. That action was not successful but that is not the issue to which I am referring. The result of that action was that the employer summarily dismissed these men. One gets that type of employer and it is where that employer exists that the worker must be safeguarded to the best of our ability.

I do not believe that the general body of agricultural employers would react in that way. Looking at the operations of the inspectors of the Agricultural Wages Board one often finds that where a worker is aggrieved and where he feels he is not getting even the minimum rate set out and where he makes representations to the board or to someone who, in his view, might represent the board such as a Deputy, or a trade union official, the employee is invariably afraid that his employer will learn that he has reported the matter and he usually requests the person to whom he makes representations to ask the inspector visiting the farm to give the impression that his inspection is carried out independently. That is quite a common thing and it is a very natural reaction on the part of the worker because no employer relishes the idea of having to pay two years' arrears and the worker could quite naturally expect some retribution on the part of his employer, although such a reaction would be both unjust and unfair. Nevertheless, it does occur.

Looking at our experience of the recent past, looking forward to the future, seeing the difficulties which may arise, hoping that the Bill will be implemented to its fullest extent, and taking such steps as we can to secure its implementation, we feel that the insertion of this clause will have a very beneficial effect upon any employer who endeavours to get out of the responsibility imposed upon him under this Bill.

Mr. Walsh

I am unable to accept this new section because it is impracticable. There are many reasons why it is impracticable. We are all anxious to see this Bill enacted and implemented fairly between all Parties. What this new section asks for could not be carried out. A man might bring his employer into court and might have him penalised there because he did not grant his worker a half-day but that will not prevent the employer subsequently dismissing him a week or a fortnight later on some pretence or other. There is no way in which the Agricultural Wages Board or their inspectors, who will be charged with responsibility for the implementation of this Bill, or anyone else, can say what the specific reason may be for the dismissal of the particular employee. Any reason may be given; neglect in milking cows, neglect of a horse, neglect of many things. One can always find an excuse.

Breanndán Mac Fheorais

He might not like the colour of the worker's hair.

Mr. Walsh

One can always find an excuse. It is desirable that this Bill should operate harmoniously. I believe that this new section is impracticable and it is not worth while wasting time on it.

Mr. Cogan

Is there any similar provision in the conditions of employment of industrial workers or any legislation of that kind dealing with other workers and their employment? The Minister may not have that information now. I think that it would be very difficult to operate that particular clause fairly. If there is a dispute between a worker and an employer in regard to the half-holiday, the employer might dismiss the worker afterwards for another reason. On the other hand, it might arise that an employer might dismiss a worker for some very valid reason and yet might find himself prosecuted under this particular clause although he dismissed the worker for an entirely different reason. In a matter of this kind, I think you have to allow for a certain amount of freedom on the part of employers.

I am worried about any piece of new legislation which affects farmers and farm workers. Many Deputies understand that you can do an immense amount of damage to agriculture, apart from this altogether. Many men can lose their employment because a number of farmers go out of business or reduce their production. They could hang on for a long time, and at the same time could reduce their production considerably. That would be bad for the workers. All these problems should be kept in mind when putting through a new piece of legislation that is going seriously to affect the interests of very many farmers as well as their economy and their convenience.

Mr. McGilligan

May I ask the Deputy this question? How are the bulk of farmers who, as you say, are not likely to be guilty of any malpractices, likely to be offended by pointing out to them that the bad one amongst them can be brought to court?

Mr. Allen

You can have organisations looking after the interests of agricultural workers which may not take as responsible a view of things as, shall we say, Deputy Dunne, but Deputy Dunne will have his satellites down the country and they will be all the time pointing out that there is this penalty against farmers. We all know quite well what happens. I think that this amendment would do great damage, and I hope the Minister will oppose it for that reason. If it were in the Bill it would not matter but the fact that it was put into the Bill would do considerable damage to agriculture.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

I do not believe that we are going to have the terrific repercussions which have been forecast by the three Deputies on my right hand side if the amendment is accepted. It is intended to be a safeguard. It is not directed against the bulk of the farmers or even against a large minority of farmers. It is directed against some unscrupulous farmer who would, and I know who could, victimise workers for asserting their rights.

Deputy Corry thinks that we should not bind ourselves too much in this Bill by a provision such as that suggested in the amendment. I remember well that, when the Local Authorities (Works) Act was being debated in this House, we had sheaves of amendments from Deputy MacEntee, as he then was, Deputy Smith and other members of the Fianna Fáil Party in an effort, as they alleged, to try to make the Bill watertight. My opinion at the time, and the opinion of the then Government, was that they were simply trying to make the Bill inoperative. Unfortunately, there are farmers who will dismiss their men if they attempt to look for their rightful wages or, as has happened, seek to secure their legal rights in respect of annual holidays or the half-day.

It is significant, and this I am sure must be known to the Minister and his officials, and especially to the officials of the Agricultural Wages Board—I think Deputy Dunne gave an example of it—that, no matter how plucky workers may be down in Wexford, Carlow, Cork or Waterford, there is hardly a single agricultural labourer who will dare write to the Agricultural Wages Board and say: "Farmer Murphy is not paying me the right wages." I speak on this from experience. I am not trying to make any clever point. If I go into a district in my constituency and I meet two, three or four fellows, and suppose one has a complaint to make about the inadequacy of his wages, he will not ask me to report his specific complaint. Because he has no other protection, invariably his request will be: "Would you ask the inspector of the wages board to be sent down into my district." Now, these fellows have been victimised.

From the point of view of putting it into practice.

Mr. Dunne

Of course he has not the experience that we have had in regard to these matters. I should like to add to what Deputy Corish said in regard to the case referred to that the district justice who was hearing the case publicly commented on the fact that the workers concerned had no redress and that he regretted it. That is a situation which needs correction. It has been amply proved here that this amendment could not be used in abuse of the Act. The onus is placed on the worker to prove that he was dismissed. Unlike Deputy Corry, you will get people prepared to go to their workers, following a report to the Agricultural Wages Board that they were not getting a half-day: "You can get out of here. If you want a half-day go somewhere else and get it." There is nothing unusual in a worker being told, if he complains to the Agricultural Wages Board that he is not getting his proper wages, to go somewhere else and be put out on the road.

There has been a lot of talk about the relationship between farmers and farm labourers but in many parts of the country that is wishful thinking. It is not all a bed of roses for the agricultural worker as some Deputies would like us to believe. Many Deputies know that it is not. We are concerned in this amendment to try to protect the agricultural worker. It has been discussed very fully and we propose to put the matter to a division.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 65.

Tá

Belton, John.
Cafferky, Dominick.
Collins, Seán.
Corish, Brendan.
Costello, Declan.
Davin, William.
Desmond, Daniel.
Donnellan, Michael.
Dunne, Seán.
Everett, James.
Flanagan, Oliver J.
Giles, Patrick.
Hession, James M.
Hickey, James.
Keyes, Michael.
Larkin, James.
McAuliffe, Patrick.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Murphy, Michael P.
Norton, William.
O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
O'Leary, Johnny.
Spring, Dan.
Tully, John.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Brennan, Joseph.
Brennan, Thomas.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Buckley, Seán.
Burke, Patrick.
Butler, Bernard.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carter, Frank.
Cogan, Patrick.
Colley, Harry.
Collins, James J.
Corry, Martin J.
Crowley, Honor Mary.
Crowley, Tadhg.
Davern, Michael J.
Derrig, Thomas.
de Valera, Vivion.
Duignan, Peadar.
Fanning, John.
Flanagan, Seán.
Flynn, John.
Flynn, Stephen.
Gallagher, Colm.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Harris, Thomas.
Hillery, Patrick J.
Hilliard, Michael.
Hughes, Joseph.
Blaney, Neil T.
Boland, Gerald.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kenneally, William.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Lehane, Patrick D.
Lemass, Seán.
Little, Patrick J.
Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
McCann, John.
MacCarthy, Seán.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
MacEntee, Seán.
Maher, Peadar.
Moylan, Seán.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
Ormonde, John.
O'Sullivan, Ted.
Rice, Bridget M.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Sheldon, William A. W.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Traynor, Oscar.
Walsh, Laurence J.
Walsh, Thomas.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Dunne and Hickey; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Kili llea.

Amendment declared negatived.

Question:—"That Section 10 stand part of the Bill"— put and agreed to.

Sections 11 to 17 inclusive put and agreed to.

TITLE.

Question proposed: "That the title be the title to the Bill."

Mr. Davin

Would the Minister consider, for his own sake at any rate, bringing in on Report Stage an interpretation of the word "holiday" because he does not appear to understand it himself? It is very desirable that the Minister should understand the Bill and the meaning of words. Otherwise how can it be administered afterwards?

Mr. Walsh

What is the Deputy's definition of the word "holiday"?

Mr. Davin

That is your job. Educate yourself.

Mr. Sweetman

Ministers always have a holiday.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 26th November, 1952.

Mr. Dunne

Before the discussion ends completely, I just want to make a point of personal explanation. This morning I was remonstrating with Deputy Burke for seeking under publicity while knowing nothing of the Bill under discussion and in the course of my observations I inadvertently remarked that the representative of the Evening Herald was not present in the House. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I now want to state that in fact the representative of the Evening Herald was in the House and was the first representative here this morning.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 20 Nov 1952