Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Oct 1967

Vol. 230 No. 7

Committee on Finance. - Redundancy Payments Bill, 1967: Committee Stage.

Section I agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Minister for Labour (Dr. Hillery)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, lines 2 and 3, to delete "a contract of service or of apprenticeship," and substitute "a contract of service or apprenticeship or otherwise,".

This is a drafting amendment. The intention is that the Act shall apply to persons who are insurable for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1966, with certain specific exceptions mentioned in subsection (2) of section 4. However, section 4 subsection (1) refers to "employees", not "persons", and there is a doubt as to whether the definition of "employee" in the Bill covers all persons who are insured for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts. The definition, on a strict reading, might be taken as referring to persons employed under a contract of service only and not to a person employed under any other type of contract. This amendment will remove that doubt and ensure that so long as a person is insured for all benefits under the Social Welfare Acts he will come within the scope of the scheme, provided, of course, he is not a person excluded specifically under the terms of section 4, subsection (2).

Mr. Jones

When the Minister introduces the word "otherwise", has he contemplated what he mentioned on Second Reading, whether this would apply to agricultural classes or some other classes which were being studied at that stage?

Dr. Hillery

This will come later in the discussion. It is the intention that the Bill will apply to all classes but that certain classes may have special schemes, when these can be worked out. Until such schemes have been worked out in consultation with the people involved, this Bill will apply to all.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Has the Minister considered whether this will apply in the case of apprentices under the age of 18 years?

Dr. Hillery

That will come later when we come to the section. The Deputy has some amendments down.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Yes.

Dr. Hillery

Perhaps we could follow it in an orderly sequence. It is very complicated.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Jones

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

"‘lay-off' has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (1) of section 11;

‘short-time' has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (2) of section 11;."

These words occur in the Bill prior to section 11. The word "lay-off" occurs in section 8 and the word "short-time" occurs in section 7. It is desirable that where we have unusual words such as these, in this connotation, they should be put in the definition section and therefore I am moving that these words be included in the definition section.

Dr. Hillery

This is a drafting matter. I will seek the opinion of the parliamentary draftsman and if he thinks such an amendment is necessary, I will sponsor it myself on the next Stage. I should like to have his opinion, as it is a drafting matter. If he considers it necessary on the point made by the Deputy, I will sponsor an amendment on these lines on the next Stage.

Mr. Jones

I will withdraw the amendment on the understanding that I am at liberty to re-enter it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendment No. 3 and other amendments grouped with it seek to make changes in the appeals machinery provided for in the Bill. Deputy Jones's amendments propose the setting up of a redundancy appeals board. The Minister's amendments propose the setting up of a redundancy appeals tribunal. Deputy O'Leary's amendments propose various changes in the appeals machinery and involve inter alia the setting up of an appeals tribunal. If the House agrees, we can take these amendments together.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Perhaps we should follow the Minister's suggestion and take them in sequence. We are glad to see that the appeals machinery which we originally suggested has been practically adopted by the Minister during the summer.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does the House agree to have the main discussion on this amendment to avoid duplication: amendments Nos. 3, 21, 22, 33 to 47, 53, 60, 61 and 62?

Mr. M. O'Leary

No; we can take them as we go along. These amendments relate to material to which we want to refer later.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Then I call on Deputy Jones to move amendment No. 3.

Mr. Jones

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 5, between lines 24 and 25, to insert the following:

"‘the Board' means the Redundancy Appeals Board established under section —".

I should like to take this opportunity to refer to the Second Reading of the Bill during which this side of the House voiced the grave doubts which we had in regard to the proposed procedure laid out at that stage. We felt that the question of appeals was very relevant in this piece of legislation. Deputy O'Leary mentioned that this is something which the Minister considered during the interval because in his amendment he is bringing in a new section to deal with this matter.

I think it is important that instead of having appeals officers as we know them, we should have a board to deal with these matters. That is why we feel there should be a redundancy appeals board. Many times during the progress through the House of the Planning Bill, we tried to get the Minister to safeguard the rights of individuals in regard to appeals. At that time the matter was argued very often from this side of the House but, I must say, without avail. Since then on many occasions the lack of an appeals board as such has been felt by many people, and for that reason we think it expedient that there should be this kind of appeals board in this legislation.

During the Second Reading debate, I voiced my doubts on the question of the Minister parting with his responsibility in regard to appeals and allowing this to pass from his hands. A redundancy appeals board connotes something much better than an appeals tribunal. I am sure the Minister will agree that in a piece of legislation like this anything which savours of something objectionable should be avoided. The word "tribunal" had not a happy connotation in the distant past. In any case the word "tribunal" is not of itself the happiest type of word in regard to this matter. The people who may have to appeal to such a body would naturally be under a certain amount of stress, and for that reason it is important that they should feel they were not being over-awed by appearing before what is mentioned at a later stage as a tribunal.

May I, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, have your advice at this stage as to whether or not I may go on to discuss the board?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes; the Deputy would be entitled to do that.

Mr. Jones

With regard to the composition of the board, we envisage a chairman who shall be a barrister or a solicitor of at least ten years standing. We believe the chairman should be engaged in actual practice for not less than ten years. That is a valid argument because I am sure the Minister will agree that a barrister or a solicitor could be regarded as being seven years qualified in his profession if he had been called to that profession seven years previously; but we believe that the appointee should be a person who has been practising at the Bar for at least seven years and who has gained experience in the course of that practice. It is a good thing to know that we are agreed that training as a barrister or a solicitor renders people competent to evaluate the kind of evidence given before a board such as that envisaged here. For that reason I believe our amendment is superior to the suggestion made by the Minister with regard to the chairman of the board. The tribunal is very much in line with a tribunal this Party seeks to set up in relation to another matter, the Planning Act appeals, and I am glad the Minister has considered this particular aspect since the Second Reading.

Again, I would suggest that the Minister should consult with the Chief Justice in the making of this appointment. The Chief Justice is the head of the legal system and he is surely the person best qualified and equipped to advise the Minister. I hope the Minister will consult with the Chief Justice with regard to the appointment of the chairman. What is most desirable here is quality in the individual appointee. Quality should be the hallmark in this appointment.

With regard to the vice-chairman— I am sure the Minister has this in mind, but I think it is worth mentioning all the same—it must be remembered that the vice-chairman of such a board could find himself acting as chairman of sub-boards and it is imperative that such a vice-chairman should not be deemed to be in any way on one side or the other in relation to matters which fall for determination. In other words, he must not be held to be either on the employers' or the employees' side in the matters over which he may preside.

Subsection 5 (a) of amendment No. 34 reads:

(a) The period of office of a member of the Board shall be fixed by the Minister when appointing him and shall not exceed three years.

This is something new. It is a new approach to a problem. It is important that the appointees should be appointed for a sufficient period to enable them to put this legislation into effect. At the same time, there must be a limit since, at a later stage, it might be considered desirable to review the legislation. It should, therefore, be within the competence of the Minister to appoint the board for a specific period, giving the board long enough to ensure the implementation of the Act. A specific period will have to be laid down so that the Minister will not be hampered if he wishes to review the whole situation.

Paragraph (c) of subsection 4 reads:

The Minister may by order remove an ordinary member of the Board from office for stated misconduct or incapacity and shall lay any such order before each House of the Oireachtas.

It is important to ensure the highest quality in the people appointed to a board such as this. One of the basic essentials is high quality with regard to the performance of the duties attaching to the board. Consequently, in the removal of a member from the board the Minister should be in a position to tell the House, through the medium of an Order laid before the House, the reason for the removal of such member. No one need be squeamish about this. The appointees will subscribe to certain conditions of appointment. If the performance of an individual falls short in quality and quantity then the Minister should be in a position to remove that individual from the board.

Paragraph (e) reads:

The remuneration, terms of appointment and conditions of service of an ordinary member of the Board may be fixed by contract entered into with him by the Minister.

There is a principle involved here. The Minister will make appointments from both employers and employees. There may be employers able and willing to serve on the board without much remuneration, or even without any remuneration, but it is desirable that the representative of the workers on such a board should be in a position to negotiate the kind of conditions under which he is prepared to operate.

Subsection (7) (c) of amendment No. 34 reads:

the making of a report and the form of the report of its proceedings annually to the Oireachtas.

It is desirable that such a report should be made to the Oireachtas. The progress of the board which it is proposed to set up under this legislation is something which the House naturally will be interested in. They will be interested in knowing how it is dealing with any problems which may fall to be dealt with in the kind of conditions we are now facing, the kind of conditions in which redundancy is occurring or may occur, and particularly in the conditions of our entry into the EEC. We are faced with problems in this country of a nature which require a good deal of work from such a board. I feel it is very desirable that the Oireachtas should have before it from such a board a report as to its activities and as to how the situation is developing and what the trends are and what success the board has had in regard to the many matters which may come before it.

The amendment, which is in line with the Minister's thinking in this matter, except in so far as I think the word "board" is much better than the word "tribunal", is a very desirable type of amendment, and I believe that if it is accepted it will provide the kind of machinery which will be helpful in relieving the kind of problems which will face such a board. I know that the Minister's amendment deals with much the same matter in the same fashion. There are variations which I have mentioned which occurred to me in regard to those matters and particularly in regard to the word "tribunal" as against the word "board".

Mr. M. O'Leary

Let us get the record straight on one matter. Admittedly, the Minister's original legislation does not involve any material on this appeals section. Deputy Jones ascribes the inclusion of this to his own efforts on the last reading but the Labour Party put down an amendment on this matter as far back as June of this year. Deputy Jones put down an amendment on it immediately after the Minister had included something that arose from our original amendment. I am not claiming authorship but let us get the record straight about this appeal section. The Labour Party put down an amendment during the summer on this matter; the Minister came next; and Deputy Jones came third with his proposals on what the Minister had said.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Did the Deputy read what Deputy Jones said on Second Stage?

Mr. M. O'Leary

Yes, but let us get the specific order clear. We have been talking about the composition of the board and we on this side would say that it is going to be rather difficult to get legal people who are neutral as between labour and employers. To get such people is a question which would test the wisdom of Job or Solomon. On many of the joint industrial councils of the Labour Court at present we have legal people who are very far, indeed, from being neutral, so I do not know what the best procedure would be. Our experience in the legal branches is on the whole rather unfortunate when it comes to labour matters. Knowledge of industrial relations does not come with legal training. In fact, legal training may be the very worst approach to industrial relations because they are two different concepts and one begins from two different points of departure.

We will be accepting the Minister's amendment No. 33 because it covers what the Labour Party put down during the summer. Subsection 4 (a) of this amendment reads:

As to one-half of those members, from among persons nominated for that purpose by a body or bodies representative of employees, and...

He is talking about the proportion of employees' representatives and the proportion of employer representatives. We would ask him to consider inserting after "as to one-half of those members", deleting the rest of that subsection (a), "on the nomination of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions". In other words, we wish to cover the fact that the nominating body for the employees would be the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. This is the point I would like to put to the Minister if he would consider it.

Mr. Jones

I should like to answer Deputy M. O'Leary's intervention and refer the Deputy to Volume 228, No. 13 of the Official Report, columns 1619, 1621, 1622 and 1623. That was on the Second Reading when I mentioned extensively this question of appeals and the type of people who would be dealing with the appeals, the independence of the people who would be dealing with appeals, the terms and conditions on which they ought to be appointed, the stability of the organisation and whether they ought to have preliminary training in regard to these matters.

Mr. M. O'Leary

I do not know who is responsible but let us be glad that the Minister has agreed to bring appeals machinery into the Bill. I want to say that the Labour Party as far back as June put down an amendment in this matter and Deputy Jones put down an amendment two weeks ago.

Dr. Hillery

I think if I dealt with the appeals machinery first—we have quite a number of amendments which are related or consequential and we could deal with them, whereas if we go seriatum——

Mr. M. O'Leary

We do not propose to have guerilla warfare on these sections but we would prefer if the Minister went down the list.

Dr. Hillery

During the Second Stage there was quite a lot of criticism of my proposal to utilise the existing appeals machinery of the Department of Social Welfare to deal with disputes arising out of the operation of the redundancy payments scheme. In replying to that I pointed out that we had to recognise that here we had appeals machinery already in existence and because of the tie-in between redundancy payments, unemployment and the normal benefits under the social insurance scheme difficulties could arise if you had two separate appeal bodies for the two schemes. I gave as an example a worker who might lose his employment and so have his eligibility or entitlement to redundancy and to unemployment benefit questioned and in dispute. In such a situation if separate appeals machinery dealt with the case they might come out with different results which would not be desirable. However, I undertook on Second Stage——

Mr. M. O'Leary

Would the Minister consider that point about the employees?

Mr. Cluskey

That the Congress would nominate?

Dr. Hillery

I am on a different theme; the Deputies are not listening. It has been the practice in the legal terminology to say "a body representative of the workers".

Mr. M. O'Leary

The Minister knows that the trouble here is that bodies representing workers can come and go.

Dr. Hillery

The actual practice has been to use that terminology in the law.

Mr. Cluskey

Can we take it that the Minister intends to seek the nominations from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions?

Dr. Hillery

This has been the practice with any body so set up. I undertook to consider this matter before Committee Stage and this consideration has led me to believe that where you have a separate appeals tribunal for the operation of the redundancy scheme, this should have an independent chairman and representatives of employers' and employees' interests. I think in all the circumstances this is the best arrangement we could have and the one that is most calculated to give satisfaction to the employer and the worker alike.

Mr. M. O'Leary

Could we ask the Minister which subsections he thinks are consequential and what he wants to get passed now?

Dr. Hillery

I am proposing to deal with my main amendment for the setting up of the tribunal and the difference between us. All the others would be consequential on or related to the main one. They would not give rise in themselves to substantial disagreement. The decision to propose the setting up of this tribunal was prompted mainly by consideration of the types of disputes which would arise under redundancy payments schemes. The vast majority coming to be considered by way of appeal would be differences between employers and workers and would probably relate to such questions as to whether the dismissal was due to redundancy, whether in fact there was a dismissal, the length of continuous service of the employee, calculation of week's pay, the amount of lump-sum payable, whether the lay-off was reasonable, whether alternative employment offered by the employer was suitable and whether proper notice of lay-off and so forth was given.

The experience of the operation of somewhat similar redundancy payments schemes elsewhere suggests that these are the type of problems which will come before the appeals body for decision. As I have said, it would seem preferable that disputes of this kind should be adjudicated on by an appeals tribunal of the kind envisaged in the amendment. You could have this to an appeals board, which is what you want. I do not mind which it is.

There is another factor which weighed with me in reaching this decision and that is that in many cases the facts may not be readily ascertainable and the tribunal rather than a single appeals officer, would probably provide the more satisfactory means of adjudication in such instances. I imagine that adjudication by a board or tribunal would be more preferable in such a case.

There is a further important consideration and that is that the parties concerned in some cases may wish to be represented by legal people and decisions may turn on legal arguments concerning interpretation. It would, I think, be desirable, though perhaps not essential, that the person conducting such hearings should possess legal qualifications and experience.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It may be a drawback.

Dr. Hillery

If there was legal argument it would be a help.

Mr. Cluskey

Could the Minister give us an example of what he would envisage arising which would need legal interpretation?

Dr. Hillery

The interpretation of legal argument. The interpretation of the redundancy law would require legal interpretation. I am not saying it is essential to have legal persons.

Mr. Cluskey

It might be a distinct disadvantage to the workers. I can readily appreciate why Fine Gael want it but you can readily appreciate why we do not.

Dr. Hillery

I can well see that if the questions to be decided related to industrial relations this might not be warranted but I imagine that in most of the cases in which I have listed the issues, they would be quasi-judicial and this is why one side or the other might insist on having legal interpretation.

Mr. Cluskey

Would the Minister give us an assurance that the chairman, even though he may have legal experience, would have a knowledge of industrial relations?

Dr. Hillery

This will be an appeals board. This is a matter of the interpretation of the law and adjudicating on the facts.

Mr. Mullen

Surely the Minister will agree——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Minister was allowed to make his statement, I could call on the Deputies afterwards.

Mr. Mullen

I will wait until the Minister is finished.

Dr. Hillery

This tribunal would have three vice-chairmen and I presume it will be possible to have nonlegal people. In fact, it is more than likely that you will have four rather than one so it will be possible to have non-legal chairmen in the other three.

I do not think it is necessary for me to go into detail. The amendment itself is sufficiently detailed to provide Deputies with a comprehensive picture of the composition, powers and terms of reference of the proposed appeals tribunal. The idea of a tribunal consisting of an independent chairman and one representative of employer interests and one representative of employee interests should, I feel, find general favour. It is proposed to appoint three vice-chairmen and eight ordinary members. This membership means that you could have four boards within the board which would act by division. This should ensure that there will be no delays. We are dealing with completely new legislation and I am not sure how much activity there will be within the appeals board. One important thing is that there should be no delay.

Mr. Cluskey

The Minister apparently does not anticipate a lot of redundancy.

Dr. Hillery

I am glad the Deputy said that. We do not anticipate that there will be a lot of redundancy. We are bringing this in for the social protection of the people who may be declared redundant.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is a pity Rawsons missed the boat.

Mr. Dowling

Aer Lingus missed it.

Dr. Hillery

Both the workers and the employers will have the right of appeal to the tribunal. It will be observed from subsection (15) of the proposed new section that there is very little restriction on the type of question relating to the scheme which may be brought to the tribunal for decision. One important exception in relation to the powers of the tribunal that I should mention is that any question concerning the insurability under the social welfare Acts of any particular employment will not be a matter for the tribunal. Those questions are, initially or on appeal, matters for decision within the Department of Social Welfare.

The proposed new section contains the usual provisions concerning powers to take evidence on oath, to require persons to attend hearings to give evidence and to produce documents. It makes provision also for offences and penalties. Those are the normal provisions in an appeal system of this kind and they do not call for any special comment from me.

The Minister has power under the section to make regulations on minor matters of detail such as procedure, publication of decisions, cost, expenses and so on. I hope in exercising this power I will be able to provide for the smooth and efficient operation of the system. As Deputy Jones said, his amendment is generally in line with the broad principle of the published official amendment No. 33 and I think I can confine myself to commenting on the differences in the details of the two amendments.

Firstly, Deputy Jones's amendment proposes that the chairman of the appeals tribunal should be a barrister or solicitor with a minimum of ten years practice as compared with seven years practical experience provided for in the official amendment. I think the Deputy read into my amendment that it was seven years qualified, but what I intended was that the person would be seven years in practice.

Mr. Jones

The Minister's amendment says "seven years standing".

Dr. Hillery

You could read it the way you do. My intention was that it should be seven years practical experience. Most solicitors qualifying would have seven years.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): They might have qualified and then gone off to do something else, as has happened in the past.

Dr. Hillery

I agree they should have a good deal of practical experience. If it is possible to get a person with a higher number of years, it would be better, but I would not like to limit it unduly by making ten years necessary. I might limit the field available to the Minister.

Mr. Jones

I would be more concerned about his practising at the moment.

Mr. Mullen

What is he practising?

Dr. Hillery

A chairman who shall be a practising barrister or solicitor for seven years.

Mr. M. O'Leary

How does Deputy Jones make out that he will be fulltime employed and a practising barrister as well?

Mr. Jones

He ceases so to be at that stage.

Dr. Hillery

We do not know how much work there will be for those people. A lot of discretion will have to be left to the Minister in making regulations. Another difference between the two amendments is that the official one provides that a member of the tribunal may be removed from office by the Minister at his discretion. Deputy Jones proposes to limit the right to cases of stated misconduct or incapacity, exercised by order which shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. The implication is that a Minister would act irresponsibly and that implication is not acceptable.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Present company excluded. You would not know what would happen.

Dr. Hillery

There might be other Ministers.

Mr. Jones

It was not put in the sense of any idea the Minister might have. It would add to the quality of the individual if it were known.

Dr. Hillery

I had another objection to the limit in relation to misconduct or incapacity. Other things which you do not see now might arise. If you have it tied up in the Act, you may find yourself with somebody you cannot remove. The Minister should have discretion as to the right of removal and if Deputy Jones thinks it over, he will see it is desirable.

Deputy Jones's amendment No. 34 provides for the making of regulations in connection with the submission of an annual report to the Oireachtas from the tribunal or board. I am not averse to the idea of the tribunal issuing a report at certain intervals and I shall give this consideration when the regulations are being drafted. I am in sympathy with that idea.

The suggestion that the period of appointment should be limited to three years is again made by Deputy Jones. I shall leave the matter open. It may well be that members will not be appointed for longer than three years. In the circumstances of the time and with experience the Minister should be given a free hand to appoint for three years or five years, or whatever he will do.

Mr. Jones

It could be three years originally and the Minister would then re-appoint if he felt like it and the appointees would know that they have three.

Dr. Hillery

It could be said that the Minister given discretion probably will appoint them for such time, but I would not like to tie it down in the Act that he will have to do this every time.

I have answered the suggestion by Deputy Jones that the terms of appointment be fixed on the contract and that members devote themselves whole-time to their duties. I think it would not be necessary to incorporate this in the Bill. When the appointments are being made the Minister will have to clearly define the conditions of appointment prescribed. At that time the question of whether they will be whole-time or part-time can be included. I do not know how much work there will be but I am not sure the appointment of a whole-time tribunal is necessary or desirable. In the light of experience we can improve the tribunal and make decisions about what is the best way of doing it. I put in a number of matters in my proposals that are not covered by the Fine Gael amendments. For example, Deputy Jones did not indicate the matters which will come within the scope of the board or tribunal or the parties who may have recourse to appeals machinery. Having considered the written proposals of Deputy Jones, I still think the provisions in my amendment provide the best arrangement that can be made at this time in this matter. I think most of the purposes of the Labour Party amendment have been met by my proposals.

Mr. M. O'Leary

The idea of the nominating body?

Dr. Hillery

What I have done in another Act will indicate what it is.

Mr. Cluskey

You do not intend to depart from the practice?

Dr. Hillery

I would propose my amendments if Deputy Jones will withdraw his.

Mr. Mullen

I consider that the Minister has met the Labour Party in relation to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions being a body representative of Irish workers. I am concerned with what is being advocated by the Minister in relation to the introduction of the legal profession in this matter, which Deputy Jones has also advocated. I think this is wrong. It indicates that we can get no better than a barrister or a solicitor to do an important job of this kind. Experience in labour relations has proved the contrary. There is no denying the fact that intervention by the legal profession in matters affecting industrial relations has not been successful. Ask any trade union official you like or any employer who wants to tell the truth and he will tell you that more often than not you have to educate a solicitor and explain to him what industrial relations mean.

I certainly do not believe that a barrister or a solicitor is a competent person to be the chairman of an appeals board or an appeals tribunal. We should have regard to what has been the situation up to now. I am not aware, for example, that since the introduction of the Labour Court we have had a chairman who has been a barrister or a solicitor. I am not aware, for example, that in relation to appeals in the labour exchange you had to have a chairman who was a barrister or a solicitor. I am conscious of the various instances where of necessity we have to have a barrister or a solicitor. One day you find him defending in common law and another day you find him a defending lawyer resisting the evidence of an employee. I do not regard these people—they are entitled to earn their living—as being in this very elevated station as the be-all and end-all of this important matter. I hold this is not a job for a barrister or solicitor, but there should be a sufficient number of well-intentioned people, independent chairmen. There are various joint industrial councils and committees. Do not insist that he must be a barrister or solicitor. What you should do is try to get a person who is capable of bringing both sides together, getting the job done and who can be described by both sides as being fair and absolutely impartial.

I regard this effort of introducing a barrister or solicitor as something done to ensure that the solicitors or barristers are looked after. I would hate to think that a welcome Bill of this kind will be persecuted by legal procedures. I make this point particularly having regard to something the Minister said. He said there may be occasions when people can have themselves legally represented at an appeal. This type of thing was tried in the early days in the Labour Court and the people who came along representing the legal profession went a great way towards upsetting things because they were talking from briefs and did not know what they were talking about in the final analysis. As far as the Minister and the Fine Gael Party are concerned it is a matter of how many years standing a member of the legal profession should have. I hold that it should not be a member of the legal profession who should be the chairman of an appeals tribunal.

What are we setting out to do? We are setting out to try to ensure that people who have appealed can come along and that the appeal is heard by representatives of both sides. I should imagine that the representatives of both sides would have sufficient regard for humanity to approach the problem in a fair way. I do not think you need a chairman who will have regard to the legal procedures about whether or not a person is entitled to have his appeal heard. The Minister ought have another look at this matter. I say that purposely, because it has been said by the Minister, in answering a question across the floor, that if and when a chairman is appointed who is a member of the legal profession, he will cease to practise. We all know very well what happens in cases of that kind; cousins, pals, or somebody else carry on the practice that person has left. It is a bad thing to create a situation in which the only person in whom we appear to have confidence in exercising the role of chairman is a person of the legal profession. Surely to heavens there are other professions equally noble; capable of applying their minds to the situation.

I would invite the Minister to think in terms of the many people who have been asked to come into disputes who have not been of the legal fraternity, who have acted as arbitrators. In some cases, I admit, they made a mess of things because I see a colleague pointing to another colleague, but that is not the type of chairman I have in mind at all. I have in mind a chairman who knows and applies his mind to the situation. I have had experience of this thing. As a representative of workers, I have had to go to meetings of this kind, where you make an appeal or a demand. Some wellintentioned fellow comes in and adopts the role of mediator and causes more confusion than anything else but the fact that he has or has not legal knowledge does not excuse him.

The point I want to make here is that you do not have to be a barrister or a solicitor to do a job correctly or otherwise. I am not trying to make—and I sincerely mean this—political capital out of this point. It is very wrong for us to have one profession only. I do not accept that at all. We have good and bad solicitors, good and bad barristers. God knows, I have known of cases where they have made a complete hames of things. Of course, this can happen with ordinary people but I would entreat the Minister not to be too wrapped up in this legal idea. I had hoped the Minister would look around him——

Mr. M. O'Leary

Trade union officials.

Mr. Mullen

Some retired trade union officials are quite good. We have had quite a good example of this in the Labour Court machinery, or its off-shoots—conciliation, arbitration, call them what you like, but I abhor this idea of bringing in a fellow who will indulge in technicalities. He can talk as much as he likes about what he professes to know and he can quote all the law imaginable. Surely the simple way out of this morass is to make this Bill as simple as possible. You do not want a fellow to say: "This is what the Minister meant," or "That is what the Minister meant." I hold that the onus is on the Minister to ensure that his intentions are clear. I know it is very difficult with regard to use of Civil Service jargon, but the fact remains that this is a highly desirable Bill. Nobody will object to its introduction. Where it can be improved we will all advocate it but I would urge the Minister to beware of the lawyers and solicitors because, God knows, their interference in many things in this country is very much resented by the people.

Mr. Moore

Might I ask the Minister one question? Suppose an aggrieved worker who has lost his employment goes before the tribunal but does not accept their findings, will he have a case in common law and would it be heard in the law courts or in the tribunal, and which would be the final decision?

Dr. Hillery

The only case I can think of quickly would be that of a worker who is dismissed. Say the employer dismisses him for misconduct and, being dismissed for such, he could not get a redundancy payment. He would have a case in common law for wrongful dismissal and an appeal to the tribunal on the basis of having been done out of his redundancy payment by this device. That is the only thing I can think of quickly. You could get conflicting reports in that situation; in common law the law courts can decide he was wrongfully dismissed.

Mr. Mullen

Does this mean that if a worker is not satisfied with the outcome of the Appeals Board he is free to go to the Labour Court?

Dr. Hillery

In that one situation only. He would not bring to the ordinary courts an appeal from the Appeals Board, but if he loses his redundancy payment by reason of dismissal, which he can claim is a wrongful dismissal——

Mr. Cluskey

They are two separate and distinct cases. One does not necessarily influence the decision of the other?

Mr. Mullen

May I ask the Minister —in such circumstances as he has described now and where it is found the worker has to go to the outside court—is it at his own expense?

Dr. Hillery

Yes, this would be the ordinary legal procedure.

Mr. Mullen

He would spend more money trying to get what he should get.

Dr. Hillery

As far as this Bill is concerned, he would have the appeals board to whom he could argue that he was dismissed wrongfully. That would be only in a case concerning redundancy payments. If he wanted to bring his employer up on a case of wrongful dismissal, then it would be at his own expense.

Mr. P. Belton

What qualifications will the three vice-chairmen have and what will they be paid? Are they to be representatives of trade unions and employers' organisations?

Dr. Hillery

A lot of the answer is contained in the reply to the problem Deputy Mullen posed: the vice-chairmen do not necessarily have to have legal qualifications and it is possible to have a vice-chairman picked from one of the groups the Deputy mentioned.

Mr. P. Belton

One from the employers, one from the trade unions, and a civil servant? I have seen civil servants, not necessarily on this type of tribunal, and they were not competent to deal with the problems. The person has to be qualified; I agree with Deputy Mullen. I have been in negotiations with the trade unions. A barrister can come in and complicate matters but, as the Minister said, he would be interpreting legal matters. Provided the vice-chairmen are picked, one from the trade union movement, one from the employers' organisations——

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): When this Bill was introduced it contained no appeals machinery at all other than an appeal to an appeals officer within the Department. Therefore, it is refreshing to see that, following the Second Stage discussion and the suggestions made by Deputy Jones, the Minister has fallen in line.

Mr. Cluskey

Oh!

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): And, I am sure, an appeal by the Labour Party. Of course, the Labour Party knew their amendment would not be discussed until now, even though it was in last June.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It has been accepted now.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): It is refreshing to see that the Minister has accepted the principle of an independent appeals board, whether he calls it a board or a tribunal, and it shows the worth of a debate here. If we consider for one moment what we are doing here or what the appeals board will be deciding and what their functions will be, we shall come to the conclusion that the best person to preside over that board is a person trained and practised in the art of court procedure. Indeed anybody listening to Deputy Mullen would say: “There is the best possible case for a lawyer, trained and practised during seven or ten years, as chairman.” Deputy Cluskey said the chairman must be flexible. I agree he must be flexible. Deputy Mullen said you could have a lawyer one day standing up for the rights of the employers and the following day coming into court and standing up for the rights of the employees.

Mr. Mullen

And doing a bad job on both occasions.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): There are incompetent lawyers and incompetent trade union officials as well as trade union officials who are excellent and lawyers who are excellent.

Mr. Mullen

Lawyers would be incompetent for this job.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): There will be a representative of the trade unions on the one hand and a representative of the employers on the other. During the many years since the State was founded circuit court judges and High Court judges have always acted sympathetically, within the law, to the workers.

Mr. Mullen

Cod. Ask Deputy O'Higgins.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I can throw my mind back to the workmen's compensation code, very inadequate though it was.

Mr. Treacy

They did very well out of that. They cleaned up.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): There is no necessity to get personal about it. The circuit court judges administered the workmen's compensation code in this country from 1934 until last year and, as I have said, inadequate though the provisions for compensation were, I can say without fear of contradiction that the circuit court bench, practically without exception, leaned over backwards——

Mr. Mullen

The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan):——in order to find for the workman and to safeguard him.

Mr. Mullen

The Deputy is absolutely wrong.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Deputy Mullen has spoken and he will have his opportunity again.

Mr. Mullen

How many times did the county registrar have to intervene? What is the Deputy talking about?

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The proper person to preside over a judicial tribunal is a person who has been trained in his profession and has practised in his profession. Nobody would suggest that a clerical officer should do a carpenter's job. Nobody would suggest that anybody but a person practised in medicine or surgery should take on the duties of a doctor.

Mr. Cluskey

Bring them all in here. There are some of them here already.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): The people in this country who are practised and trained in acting in a judicial manner are the only people qualified to do so, either barristers or solicitors. I am glad the Minister has clarified the position, that he has made it clear that he intends to appoint a practitioner who has practised his profession for seven or ten years, because there have been examples in the past of people being appointed who had the necessary qualifications but who had not any practice.

The amendment of Deputy Jones provides that if an employee of the board is dismissed or removed from office, the order removing him should be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The point behind it is obviously to give the members of the board as much independence as possible and to ensure they will not be in danger of being removed lightly from office. The order removing them would come before the Oireachtas and be open for discussion in the House and that would mean there would be more independence.

I am personally delighted to see that the Minister has accepted the principle of an independent appeals tribunal. I have not a lot of faith, and I do not think those affected have a lot of faith, in appealing to anonymous individuals sitting behind closed doors, and that is the only type of appeal——

Mr. James Tully

Does the Deputy consider that the practitioner he is talking about would be named so that everybody would know who he was before the appeal?

Dr. Hillery

Three vice-chairmen.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I should like the members of the Labour Party to say what qualifications they think the chairman of this board should have.

Mr. James Tully

To know his job.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Order.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): I do not think, in the speeches we had from the Labour benches so far, that they spelled out or said in black and white what qualifications they think he should have.

Mr. Mullen

When the Deputy sits down, we shall give them to him.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan): Do they accept that he should be independent, completely neutral, flexible, as Deputy Cluskey says? Do they accept that he should apply his mind independently and without prejudice to the employers' side of the story as well as to the employees' side of the story and that he should be able to bring in an impartial decision, because that is what we are after here?

I suggest that the profession that gives to this country the judiciary of this country, which has been so satisfactory, no matter by what Government it was appointed, is the natural source from which one might expect to get an independent person, capable of applying his mind to both sides, bearing in mind that the person appointed will, as has been stated here, have to deal with technical procedure, will have to apply his mind to regulations, will have to interpret those regulations.

I repeat that I do not think that anybody is better qualified to do that than a member of the legal profession. If I assume that the Labour Party would not accept as chairman a person from the employers' side because he would be prejudiced against them, on the other hand I do not think it reasonable that they should expect that the chairman should be somebody from the trade union movement because, human nature being what it is——

Mr. Cluskey

He might be human.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan):——he would be human and it would be reasonable to expect that he would lean to his own side. Therefore, if the Labour Party are not agreeable to accept the suggestion in the Fine Gael amendment, I should like them to spell out here the qualifications they have in mind and actually to suggest the type of person and to give us a number of examples of the type of person they have in mind.

Mr. M. O'Leary

It is not our purpose to overheat Fine Gael on the question of whether or not the chairman should have ten years experience, and so on. We want a man with a knowledge of industrial relations. The Minister says that this will not be absolutely essential because it does not deal with industrial problems. Many cases coming for interpretation will have their origin in relations between employer and employee. We must not think that a barrister or a legal man is the automatic and the only choice for such a post. In the first place, he should have some knowledge of industrial relations. We pointed to the unhappy experience of many of the joint committees under the Labour Court which in some cases have been presided over by legal people who had little knowledge of industrial relations and perhaps some of these problems have arisen because of this steering by a man not acquainted with industrial relations.

The make-up of industrial relations is absolutely different and is not susceptible to understanding by a man full of rigid conceptions and trained in legal thought. We offer this caution when thinking of who shall be chairman of this committee that it is necessary to realise that he should be a man with a global knowledge of industrial relations. If it is necessary to have somebody, as I suppose it would be argued, who has legal training, why can an adviser not be appointed to the board to advise on legal problems rather than a chairman who must be a barrister of seven years standing? We do not intend to hold up the Bill on this basis but we would point out that the Minister's criteria are not how many years the individual has been in the practice of the law but what knowledge or understanding he has of industrial relations in general, always ensuring that, industrial relations, what is most necessary in the provision of a chairman is a balanced outlook.

Dr. Hillery

I can assure the House that the purpose would be to find the man best suited to this task. There would be members on the board from the employers' side and members representative of the workers' side. I do not think the fears expressed here are well-founded.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

It is necessary to have a man who knows something about the regulations, and so on, and, from that point of view, a legal man would be of value, but, equally, somebody skilled in negotiations. I have had a good deal of experience of industrial negotiations. When industrial negotiations call for a certain type of mind, that may not necessarily be found in the legal profession. There are other people whom the Minister might be very sorry he had excluded from the possibility of being chairman. Instead of putting "the chairman who shall be a barrister or solicitor", would the Minister consider inserting "the chairman who may be a barrister or solicitor", making it permissive instead of mandatory?

Dr. Hillery

There is no point in putting that in.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

There is not, particularly——

Dr. Hillery

I could hardly face the legal profession if I did that.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

We have the contention from the Labour benches that all wisdom does not lie with the legal profession. There are other people who could give the benefit of a tremendous amount of experience in a job like that. It would depend on what amount would be paid. Would we attract the type of barrister or solicitor who would have that necessary skill and would he come and take on a position like that?

Mr. Treacy

In regard to the Minister's amendment to establish this redundancy appeals tribunal, I want to be satisfied in respect of the fear which the Labour Party have consistently mentioned inside and outside this House of what we consider to be the divided responsibility of the Minister for Labour on the administration of this Redundancy Bill and the extent to which the Department of Social Welfare are concerned——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not seem to arise on these amendments before the House — the question of the setting-up of a tribunal or a board.

Mr. Treacy

Why not, Sir? This amendment came about by reason of the opposition to which many of us gave expression in this House, that it would ring the death knell of the Redundancy Payments Bill if the Department of Social Welfare were allowed to administer it.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.