Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Jul 1961

Vol. 191 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Holidays (Employees) Bill, 1961— Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce is unavoidably engaged and has asked me to take the Second Stage of this Bill.

I should, perhaps, say at the outset that this Bill does not affect agricultural workers. Their holidays are dealt with in separate legislation — the Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Act, 1950. As Deputies know, when the present Bill was introduced, the Minister for Agriculture was given leave to introduce a separate Bill providing for additional holidays for agricultural workers. When I use the expression "all workers" or "workers" it should, therefore, be understood as referring to non-agricultural workers.

The exclusion of agricultural workers from this Bill is by reference to the definition in the 1950 Act. This involves no material change in the present position and such classes of employees as creamery workers will remain within the scope of the present Bill.

Existing legislation providing for holidays for workers had its origin in the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936. This Act provided that industrial workers should get at least one week's annual leave with pay in the year and, in addition, the six public holidays. Two years later, shop workers were given a similar entitlement under the Shops (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1938 but a distinction was made in the case of workers in special classes of shops who would normally have to work on public holidays, for example, refreshment houses and Sunday trading shops. These workers were given a right to two consecutive weeks' annual leave with no entitlement to public holidays.

The Holidays (Employees) Act, 1939, extended the benefit of statutory holidays to all workers whose salary was less than £350 a year, irrespective of the type of employment. This Act provided for seven consecutive days' annual leave plus the public holidays, or compensatory leave or pay for workers who might have to work on a public holiday. The provisions about annual leave in the 1936 Act were repealed and, for annual leave purposes, industrial workers were brought within the scope of the 1939 Act.

Since 1939, a considerable number of workers have, through collective bargaining between trade unions and employers or otherwise, secured an additional week's annual leave. Many workers have a statutory right to this extra leave by virtue of Orders of the Labour Court (made in accordance with proposals of Joint Labour Committees) or by virtue of Agreements registered under the Industrial Relations Act, 1946.

The Government would have preferred if all workers had been able to secure these additional holidays by collective bargaining. However, it is clear that many workers are not in a position to do so. It is mainly to bring the holiday allowance of these workers up to the present accepted standard that the Bill is being introduced.

The Bill is a consolidating and amending measure. It will cover all classes of workers, irrespective of salary or type of employment. It proposes to abolish the distinction in existing legislation between workers who have a separate entitlement to public holidays and workers who have no such entitlement but get additional annual leave. If this distinction were retained, certain employers, for instance those in Sunday trading shops and refreshment houses, would be obliged to give their workers three consecutive weeks' annual leave in the year without any option to give days off, or compensatory pay, in lieu of public holidays. I am satisfied that a greater flexibility than this would be beneficial to both workers and employers.

As I have said, there is no wages ceiling in the new Bill. The figure of £350 specified in the 1939 Act bears little relationship, of course, to present day money values. I had considered the desirability of increasing this figure to, say £800 or £1,000 per annum, but I have now decided that it is not really necessary to prescribe any upper wage limit in the Bill.

The Bill, therefore, proposes that all workers will have a minimum statutory entitlement to two weeks' annual leave each year plus the six public holidays, or compensatory leave or pay for workers who may be required to work on such public holidays. As in existing legislation, the annual leave must normally be given in one continuous period and workers must be paid, in respect of that leave, two weeks' normal wages. However, as at present, domestic workers may be given their leave in two periods of seven consecutive days and domestic workers who are in receipt of lodging may opt to forego annual leave in favour of compensatory payment.

There is no provision in existing legislation for the granting of annual leave of non-domestic workers other than in one continuous period. With the increase in the statutory minimum from seven to fourteen days, it is possible that a case may be made for staggered holidays for some classes of such workers. Section 16 proposes that power be taken to deal with this by regulation.

Some workers get, at present, in addition to one week's annual leave and public holidays, other days off with pay. These days may be Church holidays or other holidays customary in particular parts of the country. I think that many of these workers and their employers would wish to continue such arrangements. Accordingly, the Bill contains a new provision that such extra holidays may be counted as annual leave up to a maximum of seven days in any year.

The Bill re-enacts provisions in existing legislation about the payment to workers, who leave employment before they receive annual leave, of an appropriate proportion of holiday pay. This payment is known as "cesser" pay under the 1939 Act. With the increased annual leave, the amount of cesser pay to which any worker will be entitled in respect of a particular period will, of course, be proportionately higher under the new Bill.

The Bill provides that workers should get six public holidays in the year with pay. In general, under the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, the carrying on of industrial work on public holidays is prohibited. There are, however, a number of exceptions to this, for example, some types of shift work and work covered by special exclusions. In non-industrial employments many workers would, in the normal course of their employment, be required to work on all or most of the public holidays. Even where public holiday work was not a normal feature of his job, a worker might, in exceptional circumstances, have to work on an odd public holiday. It is, therefore, necessary and desirable to retain the various alternatives which existing legislation provides to cover such cases.

A worker who is required to work on a public holiday will, therefore, be entitled to one or other of the following:—

(a)a day off, with pay, within a month; or

(b)an additional day, with pay, added to his annual leave or

(c)extra payment for the public holiday.

The 1939 Act provided for payment of a worker who worked on a public holiday and who was not given a compensatory holiday, at a minimum rate of time and a quarter. The Bill proposes that this rate be increased to double time. This rate is fairly common practice in industrial employment but it is by no means universal.

I consider that the higher rate is justifiable. The real purpose of this section in the Bill, is to give workers a right on a public holiday to the day off with pay. Employers have considerable flexibility in arranging for compensatory time off for workers who are required to work on a public holiday. The increase in the rate of pay from time and a quarter to double time does not therefore impose any burden.

A number of provisions in existing legislation are being retained either unchanged or with minor amendments. For instance, the Bill continues the provision that an employer who dismisses a worker immediately before a public holiday must, if the worker has worked for the qualifying period, pay him a day's pay in respect of the holiday. Workers will continue to be entitled to get annual leave within their employment year, i.e., a year counting from the date or anniversary of the date, of entry into employment. A worker whose remuneration includes board and lodgings must be given a specified daily allowance in lieu while on holidays but the rate of allowance prescribed in the 1939 Act is being appropriately increased.

When the Bill was in course of preparation, I received suggested amendments from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and a number of these have been incorporated in the present text. I intend to propose some other amendments on the Committee Stage.

Part IV of the Bill contains the usual provisions relating to offences, prosecutions, penalties, and powers of inspectors. I do not think they call for any particular comment other than to say that the fines have been revised upwards to take account of the change in the value of money.

I feel sure that the House will agree that the proposals in this Bill are reasonable and timely. The Government has proceeded with its preparation and introduction with all possible speed so as to ensure that workers will derive benefit from its provisions during the present holiday season. There is a provision in the Bill which will give workers an entitlement to the additional annual leave retrospective to the beginning of the employment year current at the commencement of the Act. To enable these hopes to be realised I look forward to a speedy passage of the Bill through its stages in the House.

This is a Bill to which which we have no objection. It is rather unusual in my experience for a Bill of this kind to be introduced by the Minister's colleague. The House is always very glad to make allowance if indisposition or public engagements abroad prevent the attendance of a Minister but I understand the Minister for Transport and Power has merely informed the House that the Minister has another engagement.

I certainly never before had the experience in my time in Parliament of other engagements taking precedence of the duty of a Minister to introduce his own Bill in this House.

In fact, the Bill has come on a good deal earlier than the Minister envisaged, thanks to the facilities provided by the Opposition in the case of the first three Bills.

We are in this strange position that when we seek to facilitate the Government by the prompt despatch of business, we are told the Minister is not here to do the business. I must recall to the House, and indeed to the Minister for Transport and Power, that members of the Executive would be wise to bear in mind the fundamental fact that whatever prestige in our society they enjoy which derives from this House is by being loyal servants of this House. They are Ministers of the Irish Government. It is an unseemly thing for a Bill of this character to be brought before the House by someone other than the Minister responsible for it and that a prepared statement should be read out to the House by a Minister who, naturally, knows little or nothing about the Bill.

If I may make an observation, this Bill, in so far as I know, is agreed generally and it is really a Bill where minor points can be discussed on Committee Stage. I do think it is a Committee Stage Bill.

I agree with the Minister. It is substantially a Committee Stage Bill, inasmuch as the principle is generally accepted. Nevertheless, I feel bound to record surprise and regret at the absence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce when a Bill of this kind is brought before the House.

I have always taken the view, and still do, that as a general rule relations between employers and workers in this country are best provided for by free negotiation between employers and workers, but I recognise that as time moves on we can with propriety lay down certain minimum requirements which contribute to an improvement in the general social pattern of the State. These minimum requirements here set out in regard to holidays will command pretty general support in the country.

I understand that provision is made here where special circumstances make it impossible for a man to be absent from his work at a busy time that by mutual agreement between employer and employee, overtime will be paid instead. It is important to provide that, supposing the requirements of the business in which employer and employee are jointly concerned make it physically impossible to provide the holiday at the appropriate time, by mutual agreement, some alternative device can be employed adequately to compensate the employee or to provide him with a holiday at some other time. All advances of this kind are to be welcomed so long as we are satisfied that we can afford them.

On the whole, the provisions of this Bill will not impose any excessive burden on the costs of production in this country, but I do think it is no harm to look across the water and see there the dilemma into which the British people appear to have got themselves at the present time by allowing output to fall behind the reward that employer and employee have thought proper for themselves for the work they have done. The fact that these matters must be borne in mind provides the occasion for saying that when we speak of increasing the reward for work done we should have present to our mind that the increasing of costs is not a burden to be borne only by those who work for wages in any branch of industry or trade.

In the recent encyclical letter of the Pope, it was pointed out that the evolution of economic thought pointed towards the sharing of managerial responsibility and reward by both employer and employee.

It is also true that the cost of production must be equitably shared between both parties to any business enterprise. If, as I think it is generally agreed now, this Bill represents the reasonable minimum which I think is probably operative in both areas in industrial employment in this country at the present time, it will not involve any substantial charge on the production costs and, even if it does, it is probably true that whatever additional charge will come in course of payment can be absorbed by the companies or organisations which employ employees affected by the Bill.

Both employer and employees will recall, I am confident, that with each step in the improvement of the employees' conditions and in the expansion of the dividends paid to shareholders, there must be a corresponding increase in the productivity of the organisations where this increase in reward is allowed. What is important to remember is that if regard is to be had to this aspect of the matter, it should be had not only in regard to wages but to dividends as well. Nothing is more important in industrial relations, to my way of thinking, than that justice should be done and that justice should be seen to be done. Nothing is more destructive of satisfactory industrial relations than that employees should feel that all the sacrifices are called for from them, while none are imposed on those who hold capital in the firm in which they are working.

It often strikes me that people are prone to overlook that fact. When we invest capital in a firm or business, and employ 10, 100 or 1,000 men or women, I think we should not too readily overlook the fundamental fact that apart from the day's work the man who works for wages contributes, he is contributing something infinitely more precious to him. He is contributing to the success of the enterprise his most precious asset, and that is his useful working years of life. That is as much an investment in the ultimate success of the enterprise as any money or property which the shareholders on their side invest. If those factors are constantly borne in mind it will be easier for all to recognise their obligation to maintain output so as to meet the charges that come in course of payment as a result of improved conditions or improved dividends.

I am glad to notice in such statistical returns as are available to us that the individual output in most industrial firms in this country tends to rise and in so far as individual effort produces larger output, improvement of the kind envisaged in this Bill can legitimately be fixed as the minimum for all. I should be interested to hear, however, before this Bill is finally disposed of, how far it will expand the holidays at present generally provided in industrial and mercantile employment. Are there many industrial and mercantile enterprises which provide less than a fortnight's holidays in a year for their employees?

Unorganised perhaps.

Even unorganised. I should be astonished to hear there are many people working in industrial or mercantile employment who get less than a fortnight's holidays generally. Mind you, this is a thing which requires to be said: I know of certain enterprises where the employees are already getting more than a fortnight's holidays, and I take it that the view of this House is that where that is already the case, this Bill is not to be regarded as in any sense an invitation to change the existing practice.

I do not think we should be asked to dispose of this Bill on Second Stage without being furnished by the Minister with some estimate of the number of persons who are at present getting less than the minimum number of holidays prescribed in this Bill. I should think the number would be very few. If I am correct in that it is a further argument for the principle of the Bill. I do not suppose, in view of the fact that we have not got the Minister for Industry and Commerce with us, that the Minister for Transport and Power has got very much information about it, but he may be able to get those important statistics for us. If he can, I should certainly be glad to have them.

It is rather unfortunate that Deputy Dillon should comment on the present position in England in a discussion on this Bill. He implied that the application of this Bill when it becomes an Act might lead to a similar position here where productivity would decline and we might find ourselves in a state where our imports would exceed our exports continually. The present position in England is not caused, I suggest, by want of productivity on the part of the workers but because of a change to Tory Government, and because of the fact that those who produce, the people who do the work, are not people who support that Government. If everything is aimed against your interests you will naturally not attempt to give of your best. You will only give it when you see a return for what you do. The present position in England, which is of no concern to us except in so far as it affects us indirectly, has been brought about by the mismanagement of a Party which is not in tune with the productivity units.

In Ireland we had appeals for productivity from the workers, to do more work in the same time. We are willing to do that and have done it, but no man should be asked to produce more to work himself out of a job. In the past that was the position but there has been a change. Employers have realised that there is only one way to secure more productivity and that is to give the man who is producing a share in that productivity. So much so is that true that incentive bonuses have now come into their own right. Time and motion study experts are aware of that and the workers are being given a fair share of the money realised from increased productivity. Workers must all the time demand that they get their share from the increased work they do and also that the money accruing to employers, rather than being converted into dividends, should be used to reduce prices so that the export market or the sales at home will be increased. Instead of increased productivity leading to a loss of employment it should be utilised so that workers can have some assurance of continuity in employment. That is essential.

I should like to say for the record that I was glad to read in the Pope's Encyclical issued recently that His Holiness not only recognised that right of the worker but said what we have been saying, that in certain circumstances the workers have a moral right to share with management. Until such time as that is recognised and until it is granted you will not have between workers and capital——

This seems to be going outside the scope of the Bill.

I apologise but I was tempted by Deputy Dillon's point. The Labour Party have for a number of years been pressing the Government to introduce such legislation as is incorporated in the Bill. We have nearly always received the reply that this was the duty of the trade unions, a matter between the unions and employers. That is quite so and we accept it. As Deputy Dillon has indicated, in practically all places where industrial employment is carried on and where trade unions have organised workers, we have secured concessions as good as if not better than those incorporated in the present Bill.

I still think the Bill is serving an excellent purpose in so far as it is granting at least a minimum amount of holidays to the unorganised section of the workers. That is essential because these unorganised firms, usually in small, isolated towns had an advantage when competing with a firm which granted the full two weeks' holidays, plus the public holidays, as a right to the workers. They were able to deliver their produce and service places when other firms were on holidays. They were taking the part of the cut-price shops in relation to ordinary distributors in a city. I feel it is time the Government stepped in and compelled them to give at least a certain minimum rest period to their employees.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that when Deputy Norton was Minister for Industry and Commerce he advised our representatives at the International Labour Office to support a resolution for a statutory two weeks' holiday for workers throughout their sphere of influence. That is an indication that, as far back as four or five years ago, our Party were pressing, and they have continued to press, for a Bill such as this to be brought in.

It is understandable that in the present age with so much machine work it would be necessary for workers to get an equal period of rest compared with what they had ten or 12 years ago. We all know that, in this machine age, the accident rate will be increasing continually unless workers are rested and get a proper period for vacation. Otherwise the accident rate will increase, sometimes with fatal results. I would suggest for that reason, and because of the strain of present day industrial conditions, that a longer holiday period is badly needed. While we welcome the Bill and hope the House will press it we feel there are some points that require to be amended.

I was glad to hear the Minister say that he had discussions with the Irish Trade Union Congress. I realise the Minister is substituting for the Minister for Industry and Commerce and perhaps had not got the information but I regret that we did not get any indication of what shape the amendments contemplated will take. Perhaps some of the points I was going to suggest will be covered by these amendments. I hope the further amendments will cover points raised by the T.U.C. representatives because the Minister would be very well-advised in all these matters to seek, and as far as possible to implement, the views of the T.U.C. which speaks as the united body for all trade union workers in the country.

It is the feeling of the Trade Union Congress that Good Friday should be made a public holiday. We have received the views of the workers on this and each and every representative of the various types of workers, whether distributors, industrial workers, or various other types of worker have the view that Good Friday is a day on which they should be entitled to a public holiday. I am sure that point has been made to the Minister for Industry and Commerce by the trade union representatives. If it is not one of the amendments which the Minister for Industry and Commerce intends to bring in I am quite sure my Party will be putting it forward as an amendment and giving the reasons why the Minister should accept it.

There is also the question of the qualifying period for annual and public holidays. We believe some of the hours required to qualify should be reduced and that a period of sickness, say for at least eight weeks in the year, should count. In this Bill we have a wet time maximum of a certain number of weeks. We believe that sickness of an employee up to a limited period should also count as a qualifying period for the public holidays and for annual holidays. I am quite sure that the trade union representatives have put forward their views but the Labour Party will be putting forward an amendment to cover that point. We can discuss a Bill of this sort only in a detailed way. We shall give various reasons for the figures and hours we put forward.

Take the question of working on a public holiday. We appreciate and accept as an improvement that prior to this Bill the Act permitted only time and a quarter for those who had to work on a public holiday. We appreciate that that has now been increased to double pay. That has been secured by the trade unions for a long number of years. Very few employees, except probably unorganised workers, had to work for time and a quarter when they were required to work on a public holiday. Many trade unions have secured treble pay or double pay and a day off. The Labour Party will be putting forward an amendment that the Bill should at least aim at that.

We believe that unless it is vitally necessary for an employer to compel a worker to work on a public holiday, the worker should be permitted to enjoy the same facilities as all the workers around him. Amusements and events are arranged to fall on public holidays. If a man must work on a public holiday it means he has to work when all other workers are out enjoying themselves. He and his family must be absent from notable events on those days. Theoretically, everybody should be free on those days. If an employer deliberately takes back a man to work on a public holiday, we feel a little more than double pay should be required.

I have failed to find in the Bill annual holidays for insurance agents working on a commission basis. I am aware that trade union representatives have put forward to the Minister for Industry and Commerce a suggestion that some type of regulation should be made so as to arrange in some way for a compensatory payment or holiday period for such types of agents, whether they be insurance agents or any other people working on commission. We feel that because they are working on commission, they should not be deprived of the same rights as nearly all other workers, domestic servants and all the various types of workers have. We realise there is a difficulty. We suggest that, with goodwill, some type of scheme could be worked out. We hope to submit an amendment dealing with that matter if the Minister is unable to indicate that he will bear it in mind and endeavour to meet it. I trust that the amended Bill will go through this House and will speedily become law. We welcome its introduction.

As a person who remembers the time when men, particularly manual workers, worked from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., the time when there was no such thing as even a half-holiday, never mind holidays with pay, I welcome this addition to the better conditions offered to working people, no matter what their grade. I prefer at any time to see holidays of that description offered rather than reduced hours of work, though I remember when they worked all day long, all the week long, without holidays or anything else.

As a person who worked in these conditions I often think there is too much leisure sometimes for the ordinary working man. It is much better to give the holidays in such a way that they can really be enjoyed. I welcome this Bill. It is an increased benefit to working people. We all know that every increase in benefit will be followed, as time passes, by further benefits. I am happy that during my time in this House very many benefits have been given to the working people by the Party to which I belong. I am very proud of that fact. I am very happy to say I do not say this to start any controversy — that all these measures were introduced at a time when our Party was stronger than the combined membership of all the other Parties and the Independents together.

Does that apply to the wages standstill Order?

I welcome the Bill and look forward to further improvements in the conditions for working people, as time passes.

It is quite correct to say, as Deputy Kyne said — and Deputy Dillon posed a question with regard to it — that much that is now being offered is actually in operation in co-operation with the trade union movement and the employers, outside Fianna Fáil or any other Government. We know the difficulty. It is essential to bring the unorganised workers up to the same level as that of organised workers from the viewpoint of holidays. we welcome this Bill.

As mentioned by Deputy Kyne, and perhaps unknown to Deputy Loughman, there are points which we would wish to bring to the notice of the Minister. The trade union movement have already done so. One of the points mentioned by the trade union movement in their submission to the Minister, and by Deputy Kyne, is that we believe Good Friday should be declared a public holiday. It is about time we realised that that is a day that should be a public holiday. On Committee Stage, when we shall have more opportunity to discuss it, this matter may be considered by the Minister.

Mention has been made of the possibility of further amendments. Naturally, at this stage, we do not know what line the Minister may take. In view of his discussions with the trade union movement, we are not so sure that he is inclined to take the line of declaring Good Friday a public holiday as we think should be done.

I come now to Section 9. What about the worker whose work is suspended but not terminated? I know of employers who, even under existing legislation have been denying the worker his rights because his work has been declared to be suspended. I think that provision should be made, particularly in the case of the suspension of work, whereby the worker will not lose. The only way that can be done is by tightening up this Bill before it becomes law and ensuring that, in the case of suspension of employment, the worker concerned will not suffer.

Deputy Kyne referred to how workers may be affected through illness. Again, that is a matter of great importance. With the introduction of this Bill, it should not be impossible for the Minister to come to some agreement. In expressing our views we are expressing the views of the trade union movement. Undoubtedly, some provision should be made in the year in the case of illness. Some employers — decent employers — have, by agreement, been working on such a basis with their workers. If that is the position in regard to some individual cases between employers and employees, there is no reason why it should not be made compulsory in the case of those who do not wish to adopt such an attitude. The one way we can do that is by providing in the Bill the necessary safeguards for such workers.

There is also the problem of those workers who are employed on a commission basis. So far as we can see, they are not being included. I think that is unfair. If we are to look at some of the disputes between employers and workers in this category in the industrial field even over the past couple of years, it will be found that some of those employers will not be co-operative if they can evade their responsibilities by pointing out that there is no provision in the Bill whereby the benefits provided for others are offered to those employed on a commission basis. If that is not tightened up in the future as in the past, these workers will not get the benefits which we believe should be theirs.

What about the position of casual workers? Deputy Kyne drew attention to the number of hours necessary to qualify. I see from my experience of the building industry the difficulties of the casual workers. I believe that the present number of hours for qualification are too high. We know that in the building industry and to a large degree in relation to dockers many people are employed in a casual way. Unless the number of hours for qualification is reduced somewhat, many of those people will not get the benefits. Even though Deputy Loughman hopes for much publicity for this Bill — I do not blame him — it is essential to let the public and the casual workers know of its provisions. Unless there is an amendment by the Minister or by others asking the Minister's co-operation, these casual workers will not get the benefits we all hope for. The reduction of hours for qualification purposes applies perhaps even more in the case of juveniles.

Like Deputy Kyne, I appreciate the fact that this is more of a Committee Bill. In expressing these views, we know we are expressing the views not only of our own Party but also of the trade union movement. I would ask the Minister to have these matters considered. Naturally enough, if the Minister brings in amendments, it would be much more helpful to all concerned than if we were to put them down because in the latter event the Minister might take a different view from ours.

I could not agree with the doubts expressed by Deputy Dillon. It is non-sensictl to suggest that there might be a danger to the overall economy of this country by offering these workers —they may not yet get the holidays— equal rights. It will not affect the economy of the country in the way that Deputy Dillon seems to suggest. It will give to these workers a deep sense of satisfaction and a feeling that at least they will be on a par with those who have been enjoying the benefits for some years past. It may help to make the workers, who will get the benefits, more contented in their own country instead of their being obliged to go abroad to get much more advantageous benefits in the same categories.

I am prompted to say something when I hear Deputy Loughman come along with what I have been calling in this House for the past month Fianna Fáil clap-trap about the liberal policy of Fianna Fáil towards the workers.

We all welcome this Bill and why should we not? We are not a rich people. Most of us are not so far from the period when our people had to work with their hands. Anything Dáil Éireann can do to make the lot of the worker in Ireland a better one is desirable. For Deputy Loughman to say that this was only following the liberal policy of Fianna Fáil towards the workers is ridiculous because the record of Fianna Fáil towards the workers is a disgrace.

They were the Government who were able to impose a standstill Order. They were the Government who were able to baton the teachers of Dublin in the streets. Only the other day a section of the Minister's Department were able to stand over the lock-out of the busmen. They are the Government who brushed off the nurses and insulted the doctors.

These remarks are not relevant.

Are we to start a debate on this basis?

I cannot allow that. What Deputy Lynch is saying is irrelevant.

He is talking clotted nonsense.

This deals with holidays and not with the record of any Party.

Deputy Loughman mentioned the record of Fianna Fáil and I thought it was only right to reply and give him actual facts.

The record is contained in the statutes of the Oireachtas. There you have the number of statutes passed by us and the number passed by the Coalition Government. It is there in solid letters of gold.

I suggest we keep to the Bill.

It was mentioned by Deputies that Good Friday should be recognised as a holiday. There is no doubt it should because it commemorates the most solemn occasion in the whole of the world's history. We, as a Christian and Catholic people, should recognise it as a general holiday in this country. I am sure that, if and when it is recognised as a general holiday, we will recognise it for the solemn occasion it commemorates. I listened to a Brains Trust programme from Great Britain a couple of years ago when there was a discussion as to whether it was right or not to play football on Christmas Day and Good Friday. Every angle of the matter was discussed, but nobody introduced the name of God or mentioned the solemn occasions these two days commemorate. If the Government should decide to make Good Friday a general holiday, we in Ireland would respect that day and use it to commemorate that great occasion.

I do not withdraw what I said about the policy of Fianna Fáil. I welcome this Bill because it is a step in the right direction in giving organised workers the opportunity of a holiday.

First, I should like to thank Deputies for their constructive and welcoming attitude towards this Bill. Deputy Dillon asked me to state how far it would affect various groups of workers already within the State. All we know is that the majority of organised workers already receive two weeks' holidays, but beyond that there are no records upon which to base a firm assertion in regard to the percentage.

Deputy Dillon also referred to the incidence of costs arising from the increased holiday period on the public and the State in general. All I can say is that there has been a remarkable increase in productivity in industry during the last few years and that if the right kind of atmosphere can be maintained between employers and workers in dealing with all questions of conditions in industry, wages, hours and so on, and if they can work together for the common good to their mutual advantage, it should be possible to absorb costs of this kind so that the community in general would benefit and not suffer from any disadvantage.

Deputy Kyne made a helpful contribution to that, as did Deputy Dillon, when they said that the workers should feel a sense of confidence that they are getting a proper share of the monetary results of increased productivity. Equally, the workers should feel that the profits of industry are being sufficiently ploughed back into enabling costs of production to be lowered and that they themselves will share adequately in increased profits resulting from increased business.

I should say — and I am sure I am speaking for the Minister for Industry and Commerce — that in relation to the present period through which we are going we do have to exercise the very greatest care in respect of the full and fair exchange of information between employers and workers so that the growth in industrial exports will not be in any way hindered by unwise action in respect of any element of costing. I am sure, in relation to the effects of the holiday period on industrial costs, both the employers and the workers will take full account of surveys in the foreign markets to which we send our goods, changes in the pattern of trade and changes in the growth of demand.

Deputy Kyne referred to the questions that have been put forward by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions relating to this Bill and which have not actually been dealt with in the Bill in one way or another as yet. I think the best thing I can do to help Deputies is to give an account of the proposals made by the Congress and the attitude of the Minister for Industry and Commerce towards them. When I say "the attitude of the Minister" I should state he is considering action on the lines I am going to indicate between now and the Committee Stage. I cannot absolutely commit the Minister. He may no doubt have made up his mind on certain changes definitely now. On the other hand, he may want to consider the proposals of the Congress before the Committee Stage finally comes to the House.

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions proposed that the qualifying period for work for entitlement to public and annual holidays be reduced from 150 hours over a four or five week period to 120 hours and, at the other end of the scale, from 1,800 hours to 1,440 hours respectively, to take account of reductions in the working hours since 1939 — in other words, that there should be further action taken by the Minister to allow for the fact that working hours in general have been reducing and are still reducing.

The Minister is considering a compromise. He is considering that it might be wise that the qualifying period be reduced to 135 hours and 1,600 hours respectively, as compared with the 120 hours and 1,440 hours proposed by the Congress. I hope the Deputies in the Labour Party and other Deputies interested will consider that would be a reasonable compromise. I should add that it is based on a reduction in the working week of from, generally speaking, 48 hours to 44 hours. On that basis the Minister has made his provisional suggestion for the compromise number of hours.

Several Deputies have raised the question in regard to Good Friday and have suggested it be recognised as a holiday for workers in this Bill. I understand the Minister is not prepared to accept that suggestion because all present holidays are declared public holidays and the declaration of a public holiday is a matter of significance with implications beyond that of a holiday for workers. In other words, the question of what constitutes a public holiday goes beyond the question of what constitutes rest periods for workers and is a matter for consideration apart from this Bill. It may be possible for the Minister to provide, however, that any day declared by the Government to be a public holiday can be described as one for the purposes of the Bill, so that, should the Government at any time decide to alter the character of public holidays, I think I am right in saying it will not be necessary to amend the Bill. Deputy Kyne will understand that point.

Another suggestion put forward by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is that workers who work on public holidays should get double time plus a day off or triple time. The Bill provides for double time payment for work on a public holiday, which is surely a substantial advance on the time and a quarter provided in the 1939 Act. The Minister's view would be that that is, perhaps, going too far. There may be certain types of trades, or trades or occupations in certain areas, where it would be difficult to enforce triple time for workers on public holidays or the alternative of double time plus a day off. I think it can be recognised that the improvement in the Bill is a reasonable one.

A further recommendation was that the Minister should take power to make regulations declaring classes of persons to be workers for the purposes of the Bill. This would enable persons working on a commission basis to come under the aegis of the Bill. That would apply to insurance agents who are in full time employment. Deputy Kyne suggested certain workers paid on a commission basis be brought specifically within the Bill. I think the Minister's proposal that he can make regulations declaring classes of persons to be workers will cover that matter.

Another proposal was that the Bill should specify reduced qualifying periods of work applicable to casual workers to be prescribed by the Minister; and an alternative proposal by the trade unions was to give workers, permanent and casual, in the building trade, docks, and permanent industry a special position under the Bill. The Minister finds that proposal unacceptable at the moment and he thinks that the amendment which he is considering, recommending a reduction of the qualifying periods for workers generally, will at least partially meet the point with regard to casual workers. If provision is made generally to reduce qualifying hours it will bring within its ambit classes of casual workers, such as those who work broken periods and short periods in the building trade. The idea is, I think, that the proposals of the Trade Union Congress in some respects are not flexible enough. Anomalies might arise and one might get certain categories excluded in one way or another. One might create difficulties for the trades concerned. It is best then to leave certain questions to regulations, such as has been done in the case of the insurance agents, and cover the rest by means of a qualifying period.

A still further proposal was that sick leave should count as hours worked up to a maximum of one week prior to a public holiday and up to a maximum of eight weeks in a year for annual leave. Again, the Minister feels that no specific amendment should be introduced on this point and that it would be better to meet the position by an amendment to reduce the qualifying periods in the manner I have already indicated, namely, by reducing them to 135 and 1,600 respectively.

I have, I think, dealt with all the proposals which have been put forward by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. The Minister is considering them and he has some immediate ideas on them, ideas which I have indicated to the House. He is not necessarily committed to them, but Deputies now have an opportunity to consider what the Minister has in mind at the moment.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday 1st August, 1961.
Barr
Roinn