No. 19 is being taken in conjunction with No. 18.
Committee on Finance. - Trade Union Bill, 1966: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Last night I had been referring to the general temptation to bring a legal interpretation to bear on the subject to industrial relations, and suggested that there were dangers in it. I was saying that what we should be doing in the course of this Bill is looking at the whole course of our industrial society, and I was referring to the workers' democracy policy of the Labour Party in this connection. I had been criticising some ill-founded attacks which had been made in this House on that policy by both the Fine Gael Party and the Fianna Fáil Party.
I said last night we had no resentment of criticism which was founded on what, in fact, we said and what our policy was. What we resented was attacks founded on what people imagined we said, for their own political purposes. I remarked that in relation to the fundamental conflict in Irish industry, this economic conflict at the basis of so much disorder in our industrial society, our workers' democracy policy pamphlet was a contribution towards the creation of a new situation. We think that the state of civil war which exists in industry at present calls for changes as fundamental as those we advocate in our policy document.
It is regrettable that that document has been greeted in the way it has been by the leading politicians of the other two Parties in this House. The Taoiseach has seen a total deprivation of freedom involved in this document, whereas, as we have been saying, the whole point in the document is to give as much freedom as possible to workers in industry. If our document can be attacked on any basis it can surely be attacked on the lines of giving too much freedom to the majority of those involved in industry. The very last thing the document can be criticised for is any suggestion of the limitation of freedom. The whole document is inspired by the idea of giving dignity and meaning back to work in industry. Nothing less than a programme designed to bring about such a situation in industry will get the industrial peace that all of us desire.
There is no use in thinking that the conflict can be resolved by tinkering around and pretending the problem does not exist, because the problem undoubtedly does exist. A great deal of research would be needed but the experience of other countries suggests that the worker in modern industry feels himself more and more a creature of impersonal powers, more and more part of the machine he is tending. He is deprived of any human significance whatever. He is asked to produce more and yet at his place of work he is not given the status a human being should be given.
I was saying our document has been attacked as being Utopian. Before universal suffrage was brought in, that was Utopia. There were in the Parliament of those days gentlemen who said that society would be wrecked if the vote were given to every adult in the country. They foresaw red revolution if universal suffrage came in. It is understandable that the conservatives in our day should attack proposals to give the greatest possible amount of freedom to workers in industry. This attack has come from all parts of this House.
As I remarked last night, all of us here are supposed to subscribe to the idea of political democracy in a parliament in which we resolve our differences by dialogue. In fact, our differences are resolved in the ballot boxes and the different interests agree to sit down together in Parliament to legislate for the country. There is no point in a political democracy if we do not subscribe to these points, as our Party do.
There has been an attempt in this matter of industrial relations to suggest that our significant contribution in our worker policy document is somehow an attempt to sabotage our industrial system, is somehow subversive. I wish to repeat that this document has been put forward as an honest contribution to resolving difficulties in Irish industry. We invited all political Parties to give us their ideas about how the conflict in Irish industry may be resolved. To attack the document as Utopian and impossible is not meeting the suggestions in our document, which is aimed at improving human conditions. Similar attacks have greeted previous attempts at improvement in human conditions. How many years ago is it that the suggestion of putting bathrooms in council houses was greeted with the comment that the tenants would put turf or coal in the baths, that in any case they would not use them? It is an illustration of the totally arrogant claim by people that they know what is possible and what is not.
In the country at the moment the newspapers and the seminars being run by political Parties are filled with a type of certainty. Mark you, Deputy Cosgrave the other night pronounced this general rule for the Irish people. Deputy Lynch, the Taoiseach, and Deputy Cosgrave made similar speeches at different venues on the same evening. That is nothing remarkable considering the amount they have in common. The brunt of their remarks was against the Labour Party. Deputy Cosgrave referred to a revolution and Deputy Lynch spoke about State control. The point has now been reached at which people are attempting not to discuss our policy document but, in emotive terms, to frighten the electorate into the belief that we are putting forward policies which we have not in fact put forward.
Obviously, if in political democracy in Parliament an attempt is made to get rid of a socialist presence in this Parliament, then we can all go home because what is there left to discuss? What is left to discuss between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael without a Labour Party? This is precisely the point in our industrial democracy document. We have suggested in it a new order in Irish industry and I would have thought that we deserve, and that political Parties had reached the point where they could give such a document mature comment.
I understand Fianna Fáil may be correcting their previous imbalance of criticism on this document. Up to now they have indulged in a smear campaign, refusing to judge the document on its merits. I understand that Fianna Fáil had a special meeting last night to consider the contents of the document and after that meeting we may presumably get more informed comment from them. If Fine Gael can arrange for the same type of discussion, it may be possible that the worker policy document of the Labour Party will be given more serious comment.
That is what we are inviting. We invited anybody to disagree with the points in the document and to lay their disagreements on the table and not to indulge in smear criticism, in a smear campaign—not to continue to participate in that old shameful pastime in Irish politics in which your opponents are subversive or, as we used to call them, Communists. In Irish politics in our time, so many people who patently were not Communists were described as Communists, so many conservative politicians have cried "wolf" so often, have addressed people who patently were not Communists as Communists that if ever the day comes when, perhaps, because of misgovernment there will be a strong Communist Party in this country, it will then be too late because nobody will believe that the Communists are Communists because so often in the past so many people have been smeared as Communists who were not subscribers to any totalitarian philosophy.
I have remarked that the two Bills we have here do not go to the root causes of the discontent in Irish industry. Far deeper probes of the sources of dissension in Irish industrial life are needed before we can say we have made a proper examination of the underlying conflicts. I have suggested that those conflicts are such that they require remedies and policies as fundamental as those we, the Labour Party, have advocated for Irish industry. Any honest examination of the differences between employer and employee in Irish industry requires policies as farreaching and fundamental as we have proposed in our document.
I suggest that an honest examination could come up with no different answer, and certainly only with an answer along the road that we have suggested. All our speeches are directed to the point of calling for more cooperation in the place of work—more consultation. The cases are there. Not ten year ago, certainly not farther back, quite recently, it has been suggested that there is complete break-down of communication and consultation between employer and employee in Irish industry—that there are still in 1968 and 1969 too many workers being given their cards with too little consultation—and that the unqualified power as at present existing of hiring and firing by employers has to be hedged around with social clauses that would spell out more clearly the employers' obligation to the community.
One question is whether the worker, who is tied in his job to one particular firm, has as much a stake in that firm as the shareholder who may keep his shares in that company for a year or two until they increase in value before his investment proceeds elsewhere to a more remunerative quarter. Yet, at present, legally it is the shareholder who is the owner. It is the shareholder who is given all the rights in the legal concept of the firm as we know it at present, the person who can flit with his investment from company to company. If we look up the shareholdings in this country we will see that there are very few shareholders who stick with one company as long as the average employee must stick with the one company. The average employee in the larger company sinks or swims with that company and his family sink or swim with him.
The people who decided to close down Rawson's in Dundalk did not have to sink or swim with Rawson's. The capital they withdrew is probably flourishing now in some other quarter in industry. I do not know whether the workers who were employed in Rawson's are flourishing in another job at present. You can see that, on grounds of equity, not on any particular political philosophy, we must give the ordinary employees in industry a status in the firm in which they work. We cannot regard the employee simply as part of the furnishings; he must be given a higher status than the actual equipment or machinery in the place in which he works. To be perfectly honest, more attention is paid to the machinery, to the inanimate production unit, than is paid to the employee. Specialists of one sort or another are brought in to consider whether there is wear and tear on the machinery, to consider depreciation costs, to assess the lifetime of the machinery, how its lifetime may be extended, what are the best working conditions for it and how its performance may be improved. One need not ask if the same attention is given to the employee. How many specialists are called in to see that the employees are satisfied with their lot? How much attention is given to this aspect in management circles?
Therefore, unless we seek to change the balance of forces in the place of work, to give employees a share in decisions which affect them, I cannot see how we are going to get real co-operation in the place of work. Today people know too much for anybody to think that the majority of citizens working in industry will be content to remain where they have been. The whole spirit of our age calls for an appreciation of human dignity. God knows, sufficient speeches have been made on the theme of human dignity. I suppose the greatest criticisms that can be made of us is that, while those speeches have been made, we have done very little to realise that human dignity in the place of work, or to give our citizens a decent standard of living.
If the question of incomes is one of the embittering factors in industry it is equally important, having solved that problem, to proceed to this matter of restoring dignity to the majority in industry. I repeat that the primary function of a Government is so to improve the economy that wage rates can keep the majority of people above the poverty line. As I have said, there are too many workers earning less than £11 per week and on the poverty line. It is just as well to remember that, because too many statements are made suggesting that the problem of incomes is no longer the basic problem. The figure I gave last night was that 38 per cent of our industrial workers are earning less than £11 per week and, as long as that situation remains, there will be no peace in industry.
As a democratic people we could not have respect for ourselves if there was peace in industry when 38 per cent of industrial employees were earning less than £11 per week. In asking our fellow citizens to maintain peace in industry when they are earning below £11 per week, we would be asking them to starve their children. We would be asking them to live on less than £11 per week, asking them to neglect their children. A new form of obedience to State would be dictating —this is something to which I would not subscribe—"Please do not rock the boat on your £11 a week. We know that it is not enough on which to keep your wife and children; we know that your whole family life will be breaking down under the impossible strain of trying to rear a family on £11 a week, but the economy cannot afford any more for you."
I would say that in a democracy the only reaction of a free man to such an order is to reject it. The only selfrespecting thing for a man who has the concern of his family at heart to do is to reject this advice and look for more wages, to demand of the Government of the day that the economy be so ordered that more wages can be provided. If we cannot provide more wages for the man with three or four children and who is earning £11 per week, then it is time we packed up the whole enterprise of the Republic of Ireland because we have failed. There is no point in continuing the pretence any longer if we are not able to change the situation in which 38 per cent of the workers are doomed to earn less than £11 per week. It is time we went back to Westminister to see if they can do any better.
Even having solved that economic conflict we would still have to solve the problem of restoring dignity in the place of work. It is a problem with which all modern industrial societies have been faced and are tackling at present to some extent. There is no point in putting off the day of industrial democracy by saying that it is not necessary in this country. We all know that within the place of work there exists the attitude of "them" and "us", or what has been described as an apartheid in industry. It is important that that problem be solved. There would be no conflict between restoring humanity in the place of work and seeing that a good day's work is done. We have not done any investigation of it but there are studies to suggest that more efficiency can be realised when greater participation is initiated in the place of work. I would not suggest that this should be the basic reasoning behind our proposals in this area because the basic reasoning should have as its point of departure the ethical superiority of giving dignity back to work. That should be the major point of departure and the efficiency factor should follow. But there are studies to suggest that greater efficiency results from giving greater participation back to the majority of people working in industry. It is true in human experience that the more satisfied one is, the more contented, the more productive one is at one's job; and the more dissatisfied and discontented and the more worried one is, the less one can give to the job. I have no doubt that, if we can give more interest to the workers, give more control to the majority in Irish industry, greater productivity and efficiency may well result, in addition to having a more humane situation prevailing in the place of work.
Nobody has suggested, nor have we suggested in our document, that we want the whole of our policy inaugurated now. The policies we suggest in Irish industry were put out as democratic policies and we invited criticism from all those involved in Irish industry and from all interested in the country in regard to our first statement of aims. We would then see, as we got more reaction from Irish industry, how, perhaps, one suggestion could be made more practical or how another could be changed. What we have done in our document is to give a political commitment as to what eventually we would like to see in Irish industry. We are not so naïve as to suggest that this is what we want all in one "go".
Remember, in everthing we desire in Irish industry we fully subscribe to the necessity for democratic consent. Ours is a democratic Party and nothing in our policy document will be implemented without the expressed permission and consent of the Irish people. We are quite willing to wait and accept results on that basis. Nothing subversive is suggested. Everything in our policy documents is printed in the open light of day and is there to be examined by every Irish citizen so that he can make up his mind for himself whether or not to support us.
I see no conflict between efficient management in Irish industry and the policy points we suggest in our workers' democracy. Rather do I see the enthusiastic consent of Irish management to our proposals because I visualise Irish management realising that, unless we can get a really viable community, a community from which conflict is eliminated in the place of work, we shall not see progress made in the industrial sector. Certainly, we shall be incapable of making the strides in exports we should make. Our unions and work people will be too embittered to accept the changes that are necessary in Irish industry unless we can eliminate the conflict which at present exists there and unless we can, in fact, recreate a real community in the place of work.
I suppose the first job we must tackle, the one that would occur here and now, is to deepen the idea of consulation. Over the years the unions have done their utmost to get the concept of consultation accepted in industry and they have met bitter opposition. They have come up against the idea that the whole future of the firm, its marketing and export plans and everything intimately connected with its future, and information regarding such matters, should be jealously guarded from the majority in the place of work—that decisions must be controlled by very few. There is a very old fashioned philosophy in Irish industry that what "they" do not know will not hurt "them", but unfortunately, it hurts at some stage, as we have too often seen in the past few years. It hurts very deeply when a man hears that the job he has had for 20 years will not be there on Monday morning. One can only imagine that it must do incalculable damage to the whole idea that we can have co-operation in industry when workers in one part of the country read about a layoff, perhaps in a similar industry, in another part of the country without consultation. It deepens the first impression that there is an everlasting conflict between "them" and "us": we must never allow "them" to get away with anything. The lack of consultation and the philosophy that what "they" do not know will not hurt "them" certainly continues and adds to the sense of frustration, the sense of not being recognised, not being accepted as a human being, which is felt by so many people in industry. We must deepen the idea of consultation and of letting people in the firm know where they stand.
For instance, in the past few years we have had quite an amount of redundancy in Irish industry. Organised workers have done their utmost to negotiate suitable redundancy terms. We have the minimum terms in the redundancy Act, which itself was brought about as a result of the agitation and prodding of the trade unions who realised the necessity for such a measure. We have in Irish industry too much unplanned redundancy, redundancy that need not occur if proper planning had been applied in the first place. It is not sufficient defence in this situation to say that technological change makes this inevitable. I am always suspicious when people begin to invoke technological change as the reason for this or that in economic matters. It is not sufficient to come along to the man who has worked at a job for 20 or 30 years and say: "Technological change deprives you of your job".
Can we avoid a great deal of redundancy, especially when there is not so much new industrial activity in the same locality to give alternative employment? Can we, by adopting this principle of consultation, avoid redundancy? If there is redundancy in one section in a particular firm, can we by better planning absorb those declared redundant into another section of that firm? This, again, would call for a deepening of the whole concept of consultation. There is today an unsatisfactory conception of worker participation and how exactly employers regard employees. If a firm knows that a particular market may be opening up in the near future, or another market closing down, why can management not attempt the experiment of informing the employees of the position and of seeking to enlist their support? Why can they not open up the company books for inspection by their employees? How many accusations do we hear from some people in industry that the workers are not interested in the economy of the firm, are not interested in whether the firm sinks or swims?
My experience suggests that workers are very involved indeed and very concerned to know whether or not the jobs they have will still be there next year or the year after. Nothing would be lost by discussing impartially with worker representatives just what the financial position of the firm is. I means now the total financial position, not doctored figures; I mean an honest assessment of where the particular firm is going, whether or not it can expand, how many jobs there will be, and so on. All this is necessary in the whole idea of consultation.
We have had too few examples of worker councils and the councils we have are too concerned with irrelevant matters. They do not really discussion the important issues. An impression has grown up that they are just decoys to detract interest from the more important issues. Trivial matters are discussed. There are too few examples of the worker council idea and the whole psychology and attitude in Irish industry would seem to be very much opposed to employers taking workers into their confidence.
It may be said that the unions themselves must seek to deepen the whole idea of consultation. But their experience in the past suggests to them that consultation is a management gimmick; managements do not really intend to have any really serious consultation. Some of the unions, as a result of their experience, may have come to reject the whole idea of consultation. It would be regrettable if a good idea were rejected because of experience in the past. In present circumstances we simply must make progress with this whole idea of consultation and the unions themselves and managements must play a very big part in advancing this idea of consultation.
The Minister said—this is something I have said myself—that, whilst there may be an economic core to the majority of strikes, research in other countries would suggest that, if there is a climate of discontent existing over many years, the material is at hand for a pretty lengthy dispute. How can one expect mutual respect between the two sides in industry when there is no attempt to bring in any consultative machinery, when management never meets the worker representatives, save in the heat of a row, and when the only time any confrontation takes place is either on the eve of a dispute or in the middle of it? This would not seem to be the best time in which constructively to create a system of trust between both sides. It certainly would not seem to be the time when both sides would seek to get to know one another better. It certainly would not suggest that any lasting change could be made when one only has meetings in the middle of a dispute, in the heat of battle, as it were. That is not the time to discuss any improvement in the overall working situation.
In a county in which there is largescale unemployment, as there is here, very few people have any element of choice of job. In other economies there is an element of choice and a man can pick the job most suitable to his aptitudes. If he can do that, there is then an element of rationality but, since we suffer from a dearth of jobs, that situation does not obtain here. In fact, if one is lucky enough to get employment, the idea here is to hold on to that employment as long as possible. There is very little element of choice and it is, therefore, all the more important that there should be some humanity and some dignity in the place of work.
Very few Irish firms employ over 500. Any scheme of greater participation between is management and employees is most essential, in the first place, in the larger firms. Could one say it is most essential, too, in the semi-State sector? There was a time not long ago when some people thought that, if the community was running a particular enterprise, then there would not be any conflict in that enterprise. Some people accuse the Labour Party of wishing to put everything under the control of the State. We have, of course, no such desire and we never said that was our policy. We attempted to give more power back to the community, to have more emphasis on community planning.
Let no one say that in their policies for Irish industry the Labour Party would suggest that a proliferation of the present State and semi-State bodies is their ideal of a new industrial order. In the area of human relations the State and semi-State sector have failed and failed dismally. We have only got to look at the record of the State transport company, CIE, to realise that theirs has not exactly been a success story in the matter of relations with their employees. The individual busman does not feel he is in an enterprise in which his human dignity is accepted.
Indeed, one might say that the State companies have carried over an even more old-fashioned concept of managerial preorgative than exists at present in the private enterprise sector. Very little check is kept on their activities. In the State and semi-State sector there is very little evidence of any creative endeavour to bring in schemes of consultation to involve the majority of the employees in those companies in decision-making in the particular enterprises. There has been a too easy acceptance of the idea that these companies must operate on good old-fashioned principles of management without any regard to the feelings of the majority of the people in the State and semi-State sector.
Here, obviously, is a whole area calling out for new forms of participation. I noticed that the recent report on the ESB called for certain developments which would lead to greater participation by employees in the ESB. The impression one gets — and too many have referred to it for it to be dismissed as purely an individual complaint—is that there is a feeling of importence, a feeling that they are insignificant, a feeling that they do not count any more, a feeling that they are more or less cyphers in their jobs, a feeling that the chain of command has gone totally outside their scope of comprehension, a feeling that there is group of faceless burracucrats at the top, moving them around without knowing their names or their interests and without knowing how the employees think. This complaint is too general to be dismissed as an individual complaint. It is heard too often to be so dismissed.
There should be no reason in the running of a large firm for a feeling of depersonalisation on the part of many employees. Even though our State enterprises may be very large in comparison with other firms in Irish industry, the fact of the matter is that far larger firms in other countries have brought in schemes which certainly banished any ideas that they were insignificant from the minds of their employees. In other countries imaginative schemes have been brought in that allowed participation by the employees. Our own State companies have been singularly lax in attempting to do anything similar. In fact, I do not think it has ever crossed their minds that it is one of their obligations. Even though they were set up by an Act of the Oireachtas and obviously owe their origin to community philosophy, they do not seem to feel that they have more obligations to the community than a firm which owes its origin possibly to the enterprise of one individual or a few individuals.
It is regrettable that the State companies have given little evidence of feeling that they have any particular obligations in this area. Of course, the corollary has followed that the unions negotiating with the State companies have given little evidence either that they are negotiating with community enterprises. In fact, the bargaining approach of the unions to State or semi-State bodies is similar in every respect to their approach to private firms. I recall a speech made by Mr. Dempsey of Aer Lingus some years ago in which he remarked on the failure of the trade unions to have any different strategy, any different approach, more an emphasis on social obligations, in their negotiations with State and semi-State companies on the basis that they were community enterprises. I suppose their defence would be: "Well, we have seen little evidence on the part of the State and semi-State companies to suggest that they see any particular distinction or any difference between their role in the economy and that of those on the private industry side."
In fact their approach—and I am talking about their managerial decisions and dealings with the trade unions—may have less of the community interest involved than the private management may have in negotiations they may have with the unions, because there is always a very healthy safeguard to keep private management near to reality at least and that is the possibility of a down turn in trade and the possibility of sinking in a general dispute. Such observations do not apply with equal force to managers in the State and semi-State sector. Some of them seem to go around in a Walter Mitty like dream of their own importance in their dealings with the trade unions. They seem to be having fantasies in many cases. That has been my impression of their dealings with trade unions over the years. They seem to feel: "We will show these people where they get off", without realising that the public good may be involved in a successful culmination of the discussions going on.
Unless we get a wholesale change of attitudes right across Irish industry, there is very little chance that this small country, with our small-scale industries, will be able to survive in the years ahead. In leading up to that change in attitudes we must make a rigorous examination of things as they are at present, so that we do not get a wrong impression, and do not have an imaginary situation in mind when we talk about Irish industry. We must stick to the facts rigorously. We want a change of attitudes so that we would have mutual respect. So many speeches have been made in the past directed to the desirability of changing our attitudes that one would expect some little change, but it is my impression that too few of our attitudes have changed. Certainly, we have not changed our attitudes as radically as we would sometimes like to think we have. To bear that out, I would refer to the whole approach to our worker democracy document which has been greeted on all sides with shouts of "dictatorship" and the suggestion that we are out to hold up the community to ransom.
Peculiarly enough, the Taoiseach and the Leader of the Fine Gael Party, Deputy Cosgrave, have made the same speeches about the document. Both of them attack it for the same reason. Both of them say it is organised anarchy. Both of them say is it unacceptable to the Irish people. Both Leaders, apparently, are in possession of arcane information about the Irish people because both of them seem to know instinctively just what the Irish people will or will not accept. We humbly admit that we have not all that knowledge in our possession. We are not on the hot line to the Creator for His opinions as to what the Irish people will or will not accept nor have we any divine revelation to suggest to us what is best, and otherwise, for Irish industry. We can only go on the facts before us, aided by our own intelligence, as to what may or may not be necessary. We certainly cannot take refuge in such statements as "this will not be accepted". We believe the sickness in Irish industry is extensive enough to need the kinds of proposals in our document. We do not believe that sickness is any less serious than would require the serious remedies suggested in our document. Irish industry is not suffering from a cold or from influenza but from a deep and continuing state of pneumonia. Our document reviews that situation and suggests remedies. There is a conflict throughout Irish industry which must be corrected.
To those who say that the employer and the employee have identical interests I would point out that this opinion is not shared by people with experience in Irish industry. Everything in their working life confirms their impression that their interests are not identical. We must suggest new institutional forms of consultation in Irish industry to ensure that real community exists there and conflict is eliminated. Lacking many natural resources, as this country does, we must so alter our industry as to ensure that human relations are really lived up to in this area and must seek to be superior to other countries—not merely to be in the same league but to be in a superior position in our organisational arrangements. As things are, in disputes and strife, we are in as bad a position as any other country.
Contrary to the expectations of many people, nothing in the Trade Union Bill and the Industrial Relations Bill would suggest that there would be one strike less next year than there were last year, because the causes of strikes and disputes lie elsewhere. The Minister himself might admit that he never made such a claim for his documents but many commentators, many newspapers and so-called experts, looking to these Bills and to the changes in the law, suggest that we may have a totally new dispensation once these are brought through the House.
Whether sufficient research has gone into these Bills or not is an open question. There has been in the Department of Labour, since its inception, a fondness for legal sanction. There has been a feeling that problems may be made to disappear if they are put into a legal straitjacket. This has been responsible for a great deal of the difficulties of the Department of Labour in its dealings with the organised working people. The Department of Labour has been seen too often in several previous submissions of its legislation to coincide absolutely with what the organised employer opinion of this country would have us enact.
What?
The ESB Special Provisions legislation; the Labour Court Bill, 1966——
The Deputy mentions several previous submissions of its legislation by the Department of Labour. Can the Deputy give the names of them?
Your previous proposals.
So long as the Deputy knows what he is talking about.
The ESB Special Provisions Bill.
That might sound like several pieces of legislation to the Deputy but, in fact, it was only one piece of legislation.
The second was the Minister's previous proposals about changes he wanted the Labour Court——
They were not to Oireachtas Éireann but to the Trade Union Movement.
You wished for the consent of the trade union——
The "several legislative proposals" in this House were, in fact, just one—to be accurate.
The ESB Special Provisions Bill.
The Deputy may think that by saying that 20 times it represents 20.
The Industrial Relations Bill which is before us has been discussed with several interests involved for quite some years. This Bill could have been before the House some years ago had the Department of Labour changed their ideas sufficiently. There was no opposition that I know of. There was no disagreement about the necessity to improve and enlarge the Labour Court. If the Minister can point to any opposition by the trade unions to the proposals incorporated in his Bill for improving the Labour Court, I should be glad to hear particulars.
I was just correcting the Deputy. The ESB Special Provisions Bill was not brought in by the Department of Labour but by me when I was Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Department of Labour brought in only the Training Bill and the Redundancy Bill. I am trying to stop the Deputy from his attempts to condemn the Department of Labour since it was set up. As I say, the ESB Special Provisions Bill was brought into this House by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The Department of Labour produced the Redundancy Bill, the Training Bill and these two Bills which are now before the House.
Before the conclusion of the passage of the ESB Special Provisions Bill through the Oireachtas was the then Minister for Industry and Commerce not appointed Minister for Labour?
After the Bill was launched——
In his opening speech, the Minister referred to the ESB Special Provisions Bill.
The Deputy may condemn me in my capacity as Minister but would he please stop condemning the Department of Labour and stop saying that the Department of Labour was responsible for the production of several legislative proposals before this House when, in fact, there were only the two measures I have already mentioned in addition to the two Bills which are now before this House? That reflects this thinking. The proposals brought here by the Minister for Labour were the Training Bill, the Redundancy Bill and now these Bills.
Yes, but the Minister will accept that there were proposals from the Department for a radical change in the Labour Court which would have the Labour Court as an arbitrary instrument.
These proposals I circulated when I was Minister for Industry and Commerce. Since I have been Minister for Labour there have been consultations resulting in these proposals now. I am trying to stop the Deputy from undermining the Department of Labour, which he has been doing.
I have not been undermining the Department of Labour. I have been trying to correct——
Stick to the facts and I will stay quiet. The Deputy's opinions I will listen to but I should like the facts to be as they happened.
Proposals were made—we will not say by whom—but let us say that there has been a fondness displayed for legal sanctions. Indeed, one of the Bills before us suggests certain legal interventions in the area of industrial relations. It is important that we should understand that in the matter of legal sanctions in this area one should proceed very cautiously before invoking them in this particular area.
I mentioned last night how the Royal Commission in Britain rejected the idea in their proposals for change in this area of compulsory strike ballots. They said that there is a sort of an impression that if a strike ballot is necessary or has to be gone through before a strike takes place the strike is less likely to take place. The Donovan Commission point out that experience in other countries does not suggest that this is, in fact, the case. Experience in the United States and Canada suggests that taking strike ballots before the issuing of strike notice does not, in fact, necessarily imply that. Experience, in fact suggests that a strike is even more likely to take place.
Allied to that idea there has been the rather common assumption in this country that much of our industrial unrest is caused by unofficial strikes. In fact, we now hear in the Minister's proposals that we should withdraw the protection of the 1906 Act from the pickets of unofficial strikes. Nobody in this House wishes to defend the rights of small groups who do not have the backing of their own unions but the figures do not suggest that unofficial strikes in this country have a very large part to play in the number of industrial disputes. In 1967 my figures show that 66 per cent of days lost were as a result of official strikes. It seems to me that we would need to be very careful that we do not fall for an easy solution in this area and think that our main trouble is unofficial strikes. We do not have a very high record of unofficial strikes. They do not contribute significantly to our bad strike record. Most of our strikes are what we call official strikes. When one brings in legal clauses in a particular Bill it may happen that one may worsen a situation. This is something we have referred to before.
Our attitude on the matter cannot simply be described as one in which we are just against all progress from Government sources towards the improvement of industrial relations but what we do call for at every stage is to realise that just banging through legislation may not appreciably improve the situation and could, perhaps, arguably worsen the situation.
The ESB (Special Provisions) Act was brought into this House. Although, perhaps, nobody now is desirous of claiming authorship of that Bill, it most certainly was brought in by the Government. It was invoked by the Government and it was supported by the majority of Deputies both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael in its passage through this House. Throughout that debate we had gentlemen getting up who delivered themselves of their own particular prejudices in this matter and who hastened the Bill on its way, declaring "the rule of law must prevail" as if they were talking about the Suez Canal or a legislative matter in the civil courts. Obviously, the problem to their minds was a simple one, purely a matter of applying in the area of relations between employer and employees the same rules as one would devise in a civil case in the civil courts forgetting, of course, that in the matter of incomes, which court in the land can say what wage this man should have and what profit this employer should have. What court can legislate in this area? What laws can we devise in this area to ensure that equity is carried out? However, that was their approach and they called for this Bill to go through the House as rapidly as possible. They saw it as an essential step and as an improvement and only a few months ago an impartial committee examining the ESB situation suggested that this Bill should be scrapped as quickly as possible because it is a contributory factor to bad relations in the ESB. The Minister himself in his opening speech suggests that if there is a guarantee of good behaviour by trade unions this Bill will, in fact, be withdrawn.
That is why we should be extremely careful about invoking legal sanctions in this area. That is why the Donovan Commission in Britain rejected the idea of compulsory strike ballots. That Commission exhaustively examined every facet of British industrial life and their whole report is filled with the realisation that one must, indeed, be very careful about bringing in legislation to this area thinking that it will improve the situation. Barbara Castle's White Paper on industrial strife suggests that the State must do its best to improve the organisational structure for consultation between employer and employee but must not attempt to wade in at the deep end at any rate, in the conflict between them.
Unofficial strikes in this country are not a major element in the industrial disputes picture. They contribute to some extent but they are not a major element. Therefore, when we legislate to remove the protection of the 1906 Act from the unofficial picket we are not radically altering the situation for the better. At most we are dealing with a very small ingredient in the present situation.
I have referred to the drafting of this Bill, and since any changes will become legally binding when the Bill goes through this House, we must query very closely each clause to see that in the future it cannot worsen the situation, that it cannot penalise genuine efforts at negotiating in our industrial structure. Of course, once such a Bill is law whatever the Minister, Deputies or anyone else does about it it becomes a gospel to be interpreted by legal people who, in many cases, do not understand the unique nature of industrial relations or that the mainspring of the industrial relations system is something totally different from the civil law side. Take for example section 10:
Sections 2 to 4 of the Act of 1906 shall apply only in relation to an authorised trade union which is the holder of a negotiation licence under the Act of 1941 and to a member or official of such a union and to an act done or committed with the authority of the union concerned.
I am not a lawyer but quite a variety of interpretations are possible of the phrase "with the authority of the union concerned". That is a very loose way of expressing the position which exists within our unions at present. Another example is section 9 of Part III:
It shall be lawful for one or more persons ... acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union...
In legal terms there are a variety of interpretations possible of the phrase "acting on behalf of a trade union" and this could be troublesome in the future.
That is the phrasing from the 1906 Act; it has been there for 63 years. If it is the drafting the Deputy is worried about, neither of us is competent to judge the drafting, but the phrasing is there since 1906.
In this Bill there are certain sections which have not been incorporated in previous legislation, and we must be extremely careful to see that the drafting is not susceptible to a variety of interpretations. If a variety of interpretations is possible, then the legislation could do more harm than good. The one that I particularly feel could create a great deal of harm in the future is in section 14 in relation to balloting, where, if this is made compulsory, the initiative of a union can be curtailed in the settlement of a dispute. I should like to know whether a great deal of research went into this section.
Take the section dealing with picketing of an employer's house. All of us would certainly agree that picketing of a private residence should be outlawed. A conflict between an employer and an employee should not lead to the disruption of the employer's family life as a result of the picketing of his private residence. However, there is the problem that very often the employer makes his residence into his place of work. I am not aware of any union abusing the right of picketing to the extent of disrupting an employer's family life by coming along to his private residence to hold the family up to ransom. I am not aware of such a case.
The residence of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was picketed, just to give one example.
I agree there may be rare exceptions, but it certainly is not a common feature of our industrial relations that a private residence is picketed. While one can agree suchand-such is correct, in theory, what we have to consider is whether, having tied it up in legal form, the position is improved or not. Take the group idea. We intend to legalise the basis of groups. One thing we must ask ourselves is, has the group idea been a success? Admittedly, under the provisions here, the Minister is leaving the initiative to the unions as to the constitution and make-up of the group, but a great deal more investigation would be needed to decide whether the group is the best structure or whether a federal system would not be better.
Some years ago the British TUC scrapped all their so-called industrial committees, but the new system did not work. Our experience in this country at group working does not inspire us with confidence that the group idea is the best one. The unions themselves, under Congress, have certain groups operating at present, but the whole problem about group operation is that each union still retains its own authority and its own right to accept or reject the ruling of the particular group. Though the section, in reference to the composition of the group, lays down certain guidelines, the question is whether by enshrining in legislation the idea of the group we may not be building on a false foundation—and this may not be what its proponents suggested for it: the group idea may not be the most suitable for the establishment of greater co-ordination between the unions in the future.
It seems to me that organisation on a more federal structure is something that needs to be more closely examined. At least we could see if there is not more in that idea. There is the provision in the ballot clauses that a ballot is necessary for a resumption of work and discretion is given to the executive of the union to decide not to serve strike notice. Subsection (1) (b) states:
Notwithstanding anything in its rules or in paragraph (a) of this subsection, the executive committee or other controlling authority of a trade union may, at its discretion, decide not to serve a strike notice so approved by secret ballot and that decision shall be binding on the union and its members.
It may be all very well to state that in legislation, but it certainly is putting the executive of a union in an awkward spot if by law they must hold a ballot of their members, whether they want to or not, yet to state also that they may ignore it by law. That may be fair enough, but I imagine that any executive caught in such a predicament would not be long in a controlling position in the union concerned.
The Donovan Commission Report stated that that responsibility is seen to rest with the union executive concerned by insisting on the necessity for a ballot. Paragraph (c) of the same subsection states:
(i) whenever the service of a strike notice has been approved in accordance with paragraph (a) of this subsection and the strike notice has been served, a statement to that effect shall be deposited by the trade union concerned with the Labour Court on the date of such service;
(ii) the statement required to be deposited under this paragraph shall be signed by not less than two officials of the trade union and shall certify that a secret ballot was duly taken in accordance with this section.
I presume the Minister has discussed this matter with the trade union interests concerned. It, again, introduces another compulsory clause. Throughout section 14 there is the problem that a rather elementary mistake by any union official, by a particular union, may be a serious mistake for the union concerned if anybody wishes to question thereafter the legality of what took place.
In the Industrial Relations Bill, though in general one welcomes the proposals in it for the improvement of the court, one does not see any portion of the Bill which will help to bring about the situation whereby we can retain good industrial relations officers now in the service of the court. In the past there has been a very high turnover in the number of conciliation officers in the court service. There has been a tendency for a man, having had experience in that position, to be removed elsewhere on promotion in the court service. We should bring about a situation as rapidly as possible whereby a man could spend his whole career in that section of the court— that in order to secure promotion a man need not go elsewhere; that this position would be considered a definite grade within the Civil Service.
One would be inclined to ask in this connection would it be possible to open up the grade of conciliation officer or industrial relations officer in the Labour Court to outside competition. I would not say that necessarily there is any difference in the matter of suitability between the man who chooses to become a civil servant and an industrial relations officer as provided for in this Bill. There may be quite an amount of talent outside the Civil Service which would be quite suitable for this job if we made it attractive enough and if we gave it the status it should rightly have. We should go for direct enrolment into the section from outside the charmed circle of the Civil Service.
In the long discussions that were held with various Ministers during the years in the matter of doing something about industrial relations, I understood that in 1963 something was to be done about the Fitzpatrick versus the Educational Company of Ireland case. That dispute involved an attempt to ensure there would be full trade union organisation in a job. A decision was made against the trade union who found themselves, in pursuance of a dispute about full organisation in a job, subject to the full force of the law. I understood an undertaking was given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce at that time that future legislation would provide against the possibility of such a decision. I do not see that in the present case. There is no suggestion that this will be done. In 1963, the then Minister for Industry and Commerce wrote a letter to the President of the Congress of Trade Unions in which he referred to the Fitzpatrick case. The Taoiseach, Deputy Lynch, was then Minister for Industry and Commerce and in his letter of April of that year, which was quoted in the Fifth Report of the Executive Council of Congress for 1962-63, he said:
When representatives of Congress met the Taoiseach and myself on the 16th April, 1962, to discuss trade union legislation, two separate proposals emerged. The first was that the Taoiseach would discuss with the Attorney General the setting up of a working party to consider how, without conflicting with the Supreme Court judgment in the Educational Company versus Fitzpatrick case a trade union right to take action, including picketing to enforce union membership could be made effective again and if any legislation was necessary for this purpose. As you will be aware this working party was subsequently set up and its report is at present under consideration in my Department.
The letter goes on:
The second proposal related to the desirability of setting up a committee to consider the general modification and revision of all trade union law.
It goes on to say:
I suggested to W.J. Fitzpatrick in April last when he was President of Congress, that he might take up with the Executive Committee of Congress consideration of this letter and latter proposal and let me have their views in due course.
The Congress communicated their views on the general subject of trade union law and certainly I was under the impression that in any legislation introduced in this area we would hear something about the Supreme Court judgment in the Educational Company versus Fitzpatrick case on the right of a trade union to take action even to the point of picketing to ensure trade union membership in a particular job. Possibly the Minister could let us have his views on that point. Certainly it was the understanding of the trade unions that something would be done about this matter of the Educational Company of Ireland versus Fitzpatrick.
In regard to the provisions relating to the Labour Court we can see that they are certainly improving the capacity of the court to deal with disputes. In regard to the other Bill a certain amount of caution is required in regard to various proposals in it. There is the feeling that perhaps it may be based on inadequate research, a feeling that the group concept idea has still to be proved the best idea. Also, it still has to be proved that making strike ballots compulsory will help appreciably and is the best idea. I would say that there are too many ballots in the trade union world. There are ballots on every issue. The position in Britain is different where the union rules do not make due allowance for balloting. We have to consider, when we produce legal clauses about balloting whether, because of their construction, the tables cannot be turned on a union, where recalcitrant members or somebody with a grievance against a union feel the Act was not carried out to the letter. These are matters which still have to be conclusively proved.
The Minister may say quite justifiably that they have been waiting for a long time for action from the unions to put their own house in order. He may say that he has been involved for three years in consultations with them and that this is his final word on the matter. However, it must be accepted that unions, despite everything that has been said about them, are pretty democratic organisations, some might say that they are too democratic and that the surest way to bring about a position where there is lack of progress, or to create opposition, is to attempt to steamroll matters through the trade union movement. The Minister himself has admitted that charges of coercion were made against some of his proposals. He has said that he himself was not involved initially in certain coercive measures but let us be fair: he has also spoken in defence of the ESB (Special Provisions) Act, and by implication was in support of its coercive provisions. He has admitted that the charges of coercion against himself have done damage—and I recall speaking here two years ago about this —to the kind of neutral position a Department of Labour must attempt to maintain in the area of industrial relations because its value will be decreased if its expressions of opinion are seen to coincide too closely with those of one or the other side involved in industrial relations.
The unions may be charged with having dragged their feet and with not having brought in rapidly enough the changes which they should have brought in and therefore the Minister may say, "I have been forced to introduce this Bill". However slow they may have been, unless the Minister has already consulted them on all the clauses in the Bill, then the Bill will certainly do more harm than good for, as he himself has said, it requires the cooperation of both sides in industry before one can see any piece of legislation working in a free democracy. It is not sufficient and will not be helpful in the long run to seek to justify the legislation being introduced here merely by charging that the unions themselves have been slow and that, therefore, we have been forced to bring in this Bill. That would be a very faulty foundation on which to set out to bring in legislative improvements— and that is what we hope would be involved—in this area.
I do not believe that several points involved in this Bill have been conclusively proved. It may be said that one cannot conclusively prove anything. Even present circumstances would seem to suggest that there are grave deficiencies in the group idea as it now operates. Whether these deficiencies are ones that lie in the area which this Bill seeks to correct is an open question. I do not think that has been proved either. Do we believe that putting unofficial picketing outside the bounds of the 1906 Act may appreciably help the situation? A surer guide there would be the unions themselves and their own action to outlaw the unofficial picket.
Undoubtedly, in recent years we have seen an abuse of the picket in Irish industry, and the unions themselves would be the first to admit this. Much serious thought has been given by trade unionists to the problem of the picket which goes on without consultation and disrupts industry, putting innocent people out of work. But it is not as widespread in its incidence as some commentators suggest nor as suggested by some people who urge as a solution to the problem of industrial relations more legal sanctions. Whether, in fact, it might bring the halo of martyrdom to irresponsible elements is another consideration. Everything we do by legislation should strengthen the position and initiative of the lawful trade union movement, the organised bodies affiliated to Congress, and nothing we do here should be seen to detract in any way from that lawful authority or affect it in the slightest.
About the following matters, therefore, we have our reservations: the withdrawal of the 1906 Act from a certain section; the laying down of a set procedure before a strike can actually be declared, saying for all time that this is the way it must be done, when it has not been proved that there is a lack of balloting in Irish industry, when it has not been proved that balloting itself reduces the incidence of strikes. There is the idea that in balloting young people, who are imagined by many people to be at the root of strikes, are outnumbered. This has not really been proved. In most cases in the Irish trade union movement ballots do take place and very thorough discussion takes place beforehand.
Last night, I mentioned in passing the idea of helping on the amalgamation of unions by giving a financial grant. That is something that has been suggested by the trade unions themselves and could be very helpful. We suggested previously that it might be possible financially to help unions interested in going ahead with amalgamation by the provision of earlier grants on declaration of intent. Nobody, least of all the trade unionists themselves, will say that the present system—even without inviting any farreaching changes in our present industrial relations—the system of collective bargaining as we know it in this country is the best of all systems.
I believe it is a highly wasteful system, that it is very tough on those who must go out into open dispute with their employers. It is very difficult for them if that is the only way they can remedy the imbalance in their incomes. I consider it a wasteful and tragic manner in which to settle our disputes, but I can think of no better way under our present dispensation. The State itself has failed to come up with any kind of superior method of deciding the allocation of incomes in the community. Therefore, in that situation, we must continue to live with a certain amount of disruption and dispute between employers and employees.
Our disputes have one peculiar aspect compared with dispute records in other countries. When they do take place our disputes appear to last far longer than similar disputes elsewhere. It appears to me that no matter how important the industry or service, the average duration of a dispute here is almost a fortnight. A great deal of investigation could be made into this matter to ascertain exactly the elements that predispose the parties in our situation to dig in for a long confrontation as compared with other countries where they may have a greater incidence of such disputes but they are of far shorter duration than is the case here.
Failing the introduction of any superior system or any fairer or less wasteful method of decision regarding allocation of incomes we must continue to live with our present system as it has been hammered out in the experience of its working in industry since the State was founded. That system has been based on the idea that we do not have recourse overmuch to legal sanctions.
This is not to say that the State can afford to play a completely passive role in this matter. Indeed, I have suggested a very energetic role for the State in the overall conduct of the economy. It has, as it were, in its overall economic policy generalship over the expansion of the economy. It cannot, we admit, stand idly by and see disputes rend the country apart. But its chief and predominant duty is to ensure that incomes do not fall below a certain level. That is its most important function. Its second most important function is improving industrial relations by ensuring that existing institutions are improved to the point at which they can be most effective. It is, I think, a good idea to make the court more effective. With that court we will now have the rights commissioners. While one may say that the core of many disputes is economic, too many disputes arise out of matters of interpretation in particular agreements. Too many disputes arise because of the overall bad climate in relations in particular firms and, in such cases, disputes blaze up on matters in relation to which quarrelling could, in fact, have been avoided. The rights commissioners should certainly help in ensuring the elimination of that contributory element to disputes.
It will be our endeavour in the course of this Bill to tailor some of the clauses more accurately in line with actual circumstances to ensure, in so far as we can, that this Bill will not subsequently prove a stumbling block. We hope to introduce amendments at the appropriate stage. There is a certain vagueness of construction. We do not query certain things merely out of cussedness or from the point of view of Opposition politics. We query them because this measure could have serious consequences and it might not contribute towards improving the existing situation. I think all of us would like to see any legislation improving the position rather than worsening it and that will be our main approach to this Bill.
We heartily subscribe to improvements in the Labour Court. This falls within the area of improving the organisational structure in industrial relations. Some of the clauses in the Trade Union Bill could be harmful. They are susceptible to a variety of interpretations. There has been a tendency here to discuss industrial relations in the light of some existing storm. Luckily, the present dispute looks like coming to an end. It would be unfortunate if Deputies allowed recent events to colour their approach to this Bill, a Bill which will have effects and consequences on industrial relations in the years ahead. It would be wrong also to cite the mistakes of the past few weeks as evidence of either the incapacity or the unwillingness of trade unions to come to grips with their own internal problems.
Over the years the trade unions have given good service. They have given evidence of a deep desire to improve the organisational position of industrial relations. I am sure the Minister would be the first to admit his indebtedness to the trade union movement for their constructive comments and contributions towards improving industrial relations. It would be a mistake in this debate if, as has so often happened in the past, this House disgraced itself when discussing industrial relations. It would be a mistake if members of any Party came in here merely for the purpose of manufacturing political cannon fodder for their own supporters back home, wherever that may be.
This is a serious matter of grave import and significance in the whole sphere of industrial relations. While the Bill does not go to the root of the existing conflict in Irish industry, it does suggest certain changes in the trade union structure, the group structure, and incorporates those in legal form. It also suggests certain procedure before a strike can be called. It deals with unofficial strikes. Many people might think, at a superficial glance, that this Bill resolves once and for all the conflict in Irish industry. Our opinion is that it does not go to the root cause and it was for that reason that I referred at some length to our own proposals in the area of industrial democracy and suggested that other people in this House might also consider whether they had anything to offer in this area.
Above all, it was my intention to appeal for constructive criticism of any proposal put forward in this area. I wanted to suggest that it is not helpful when dealing with industrial relations to smear opponents or misrepresent views put forward honestly. It is not helpful when discussing industrial disputes to consider the disputes superficially and say: "This is caused by this or that subversive element."
No one can get away from the economic core of the industrial unrest, which is that so many of our people must live on less than £11 per week. There is cause for dissension and conflagration, and until we tackle that underlying problem, there will be no peace—certainly no peace in our time —in Irish industry. I appeal to all Deputies to consider this matter in the serious light in which we see it, and not to be afraid to state their honest opinion of what is wrong at present in Irish industry. They should not fall for the suggestion which I expect to see put forward during this debate if it follows the usual course of these debates. I refer to the fondness of many Members of the House for coercive legal action against members of trade unions in the ordering of their working lives.
Some time ago I saw an interview on television in which Deputy Lindsay from the Fine Gael Party said: "How can we legislate to ensure that a man will get out of bed in the morning and go to work?" There is no way in which we can legislate to ensure that a man will go to work. Yet that is precisely what this House enshrined in law in the ESB (Special Provisions) Bill and Fianna Fáil Deputies and Fine Gael Deputies trooped into the Lobby together to vote for that concept. One can see the grasp of the reality of industrial relations the majority of Deputies have when they accept such an idea.
Those are some of the pitfalls experienced when discussing industrial relation. No fiddling, no legal stratagems, will solve the problem, especially if one is utterly convinced, as I am, that the majority of strikes take place for a variety of deep economic motives. Most of the disputes which take place are due to incomes. If that is the reality, let it not be thought that industrial disputes can be eliminated by fiddling with the organisational arrangements. It cannot be done without going to the economic heart of the problem. We do not realise the depth of the problem unless we address ourselves to the question of incomes, which is at the centre of this conflict in our society. No other measures will lay the foundation of peace or peaceful co-existence in Irish industry. We must tackle the incomes problem and see to it that a certain minimum standard of living is available to every man and woman in Irish industry. Having done that we must then deal with the problem of the organisational structure. We must also improve job opportunities.
Some people may say that the unions do not adduce much evidence of their desire for change in the organisational structure. We do not live in an economy which would give anyone much encouragement to participate in change. Our economy has not given the unions the same scope as other economies have provided for enthusiastically supporting change. The unions have been fighting unemployment for so long that their psychological background has to some extent been poisoned, and they see their prime job as the defence of the interests of their members. Their background explains that attitude. The Government have a tremendously important job to do here. That is all I have to say at this Stage.
What did the Deputy say?
The Minister can find out from the Official Report.
First, I should like to sympathise with Deputy O'Leary after his funeral oration over the workers' democracy policy. We have had a very enlightening lecture last night and this morning.
We heard Fianna Fáil had discussions last night.
I should like to congratulate the Minister on bringing before the House Bills dealing with trade unions and industrial relations. We have been hearing about the repressive legislation the Minister intended to inflict upon the workers. We now have this Bill before the House which some people regard as being mild. It does not contain any section or clause that could be termed repressive. To my mind the Minister, in his term as Minister for Labour, has always sought to assist the workers and trade unionists in every possible way. That is evident in the various measures which he put through the House dealing with redundancy payments, industrial training and other matters of benefit to the workers.
Listening to Deputy O'Leary one would think that our Party produced only repressive legislation. There are times when, in order to protect the community and the workers, limited legislative action must be taken. Deputy O'Leary referred to the ESB Bill. I would appeal to the Minister to repeal it here and now. I feel that that Act has lost its usefulness and that the Minister should here and now remove it from the Statute Book. I would bring to the notice of Deputy Michael O'Leary and his colleagues that quite a number of measures were put through this House from time to time for the benefit of the worker—going back over the period of years since the Fianna Fáil Government came into office. These were all to the benefit of the worker. Not alone did the Fianna Fáil Government produce the necessary jobs but they protected the workers. The first measure was the Conditions of Employment Act, 1936, which eliminated sweated labour. It was followed by similar legislation in 1938: the Shops Act, the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, which set up the Labour Court; The Mines and Quarries Act; the Holidays with Pay Act; the Apprenticeship Act; the Redundancy Act; the West Time Acts. Were these repressive measures? These were all measures designed to assist and protect Irish workers. That has been the sole desire of the Fianna Fáil Government and it has been the sole desire of the Minister further to add to this very extensive list of measures which have been produced in order that workers will be protected in times of stress and strain and in order to eliminate the many stresses in the ever-changing times in which we live.
There is little we can point to in relation to legislation for the protection of the worker during the period when the Labour Party were partners in Government. There is indeed little that one can point to. There was no urgent legislation at that stage. Redundancy legislation was needed for one or two sections of the community who found themselves on the labour exchange. I listened with great interest to Deputy Michael O'Leary.
Now let me come to the two Bills which are before the House. The application of sincerity, sanity, practical experience and commonsense are all important when examining this question of industrial relations. Deputy Michael O'Leary suggested on many occasions that the emphasis was on State interference and, when the State did interfere, he condemned it. I would say to him that we must not place all our faith in systems alone. If we have not sincerity and the right spirit then the systems that are produced, however good they may appear, cannot be successful. The worker, the employer, the Government and the other interested parties must examine this question and must come to grips with it. There are many people who cry loudly for their rights, and even more loudly against their responsibilities in this age and in relation to this problem. The attacks that have been made here today on the Minister and on the Department of Labour are unjustified and I should like now completely to refute them. Any political Party that endeavours to attract followers merely by fomenting hate does not deserve and will not get the support of our citizens.
Watch the position in Ballyfermot.
Irishmen and Irishwomen are intelligent individuals. They can see through Parties that seek to thrive on political hate and they will see to it that such Parties are thrown on the scrapheap. There is no doubt that many people in this House devote much of their time to rearing pet scapegoats.
Let Deputy Dowling not go into the matter of political hate: did his Party not come into power on political hate and thrive on it until the younger generation——
Occasionally they are vicious.
This, I take it, is for the promotion of goodwill?
It is unfortunate that Deputy Dillon was not here to hear the funeral oration of Deputy Michael O'Leary——
Please, respect the dead.
From this genial atmosphere, I shall adjourn, pro tem.
That remark is unworthy of Deputy Dowling.
I was referring to the workers' democracy policy of the Labour Party.
Deputy Treacy is trying to twist the words of Deputy Dowling.
So long as we are clear on that——
Might we now hear Deputy Dowling on the Bill before the House?
This malicious attitude towards the Minister and the Government by the Members who have spoken does not cut very much ice with responsible people. People are judged by what they do rather than by the group to which they belong. The Minister for Labour in his time has developed a sympathetic understanding with employers and workers irrespective of their Party affiliations. The workers with whom I have spoken and the workers with whom I mix of my own trade union are conscious of the positive work done by the Department of Labour. Any attempt to develop a suspicion of or a hatred for a Department or the person in political control of it is to be deplored. That is as much as I want to say on that issue in relation to the Department of Labour.
I am confident the Minister will do a good job, as he has done so far. He is the one man who, on all occasions, has the problems of the workers at heart in relation to the present and the future. I am quite sure that no Deputy on the Labour benches can indicate any type of repressive measure which the Minister for Labour has suggested.
In our set-up here, there are many factors that need examination in relation to industrial relations. To deal with these in order, I should like to say, first, that there is the necessity for the employers' organisation to put their house in order. I believe that some of the problems have arisen as a result of confusion of thought among the employers themselves and in their own organisation. The desire on some occasions to meet force with what appears to be force is something that is to be deplored. One would think that organisation, with their resources and their officers, would be able to face up to developing situations and to see them in a realistic light. Some of the acts of employers—lockouts, protective notices and so on—tend to create hardship for workers and are, in many cases, unjustifiable. They are the basis of future dissension rather than dissension at this period. The problem at the moment is over and forgotten but employees who are pushed out of work by employers have an undying memory of the injustice done to them.
I would say that this group of organisations would do a good job from their point of view and from the point of view of the nation if they put their own house in order, if they looked at the problems in a more realistic manner and took a more human view of the problems in relation to the question of strikes. I deplore some of the action taken, and it is to be deplored by all proper thinking people, in the present dispute, in the lockout and the demands for lockout of certain sections of the community. They have no regard at all for the workers. This was displayed by this particular action. Unfortunate men were sent away without pay packets, in some cases without welfare assistance or strike pay. They were thrown to the four winds. This type of action must be deplored and it is something that will have to be examined in the light of the present situation when the matter has resolved itself.
In regard to industrial relations, I feel that skilled and efficient management can make a much greater contribution in the future than it has in the past. Efficient and skilled management is the keynote to success, so that more will be available for the worker as a result of his initiative, energy and foresight. In many cases we have ineffective, inefficient management. We have people pushed into positions, who are rejects from the universities or from other sections of society, because they are friends or relatives of the boss. They are put in important positions in personnel departments, positions of which they have no knowledge whatsoever. These people have to be carried by the workers. They blunder their way from start to finish and the problems they cause fall back on the heads of the workers. The official or the manager or whatever his title may be is immune from all blame but many of the factors that go wrong in industry are a result of inefficient management or misfits that have been placed there because they are friends of some member of the board.
The lack of personnel management in my opinion is something that should get much greater consideration by firms. The personnel management is a most important aspect in job placement and in selection. I believe that if an industry is unable to employ a fulltime personnel manager there is no reason why group systems could not be organised for smaller industries where a personnel manager could be employed by two or three small groups. They are an essential part of managerial organisation. They are most essential in the selection of the proper type of personnel, in the placement of personnel, in the desirable movement of personnel and how the personnel can be further trained or placed in effective posts. We ought to stress this particular aspect. It is something that is required in order to have the best possible industrial relations. A group system for the smaller groups is something that is desirable both from their own point of view and from the point of view of industrial relations as a whole.
The trade union movement is not immune from criticism at the moment. I appeal to the trade union movement and to trade unionists to sit tight and examine the situation and not allow the organisation to fall asunder or deteriorate. There has been an amount of disruption, an amount of friction within the movement. This could have very serious consequences for the members in the future. I appeal to members of the trade union organisation as a trade unionist to sit tight at the moment, examine the situation in relation to past problems, endeavour to rectify them so that we will have a trade union organisation that is necessary and desirable so that the workers' case will be put forward with accuracy and honesty. We have the capacity to do that. There are people within the movement who are not concerned too much about the workers, about the employers, about the country as a whole, but we have a large number of dedicated men, men who are conscious of the workers' problems and who are effective and efficient. However, we have people who are inefficient and ineffective and who have created a bad image for the trade union organisation. Trade unionists must look to the future and must look for complete efficiency within their organisation and ensure that the best possible personnel are obtained to put forward their wishes at the conference table. Blundering along will not solve the problems of the workers. We need highly skilled and efficient personnel. The employers have at their disposal the finances to have the best type of brain available from their point of view to counteract the workers' claim or to put the claim for the employer forward while we have some who are still prepared to blunder along and create confusion in the minds of our own members and all concerned with the problems.
I hope that the divisions that are evident at the moment will soon be healed and that we will have solid, sound, effective organisations to move forward into the future. Modern economic complexity requires a more involved role for the trade union and an even more involved role for the trade unionist, a through understanding by the individual union and by the individual union member of the situation in which he moves, in which his union moves and in which the country must move. The question of communication within the trade union is one that needs to be improved with a better understanding of all these problems, a better understanding by each and every member of the trade union movement of the manner in which we all must move. There are many defects no doubt in the system whereby a few people make decisions. Trade union organisations will have to equip themselves properly in every respect, and provide all the modern facilities necessary to entice people to come along to union meetings.
Many members of the trade union organisation and people who are not in a position to be members of the trade union organisation have expressed their concern at the position of the lower paid worker and their satisfaction with the views expressed by the Minister on the subject. These views have been endorsed by Deputies on the Fine Gael and Labour benches. The Minister expressed the view some time ago that something must be done to close the gap between the lower-paid workers and other workers. The question of retaining existing differentials is a matter that must be tackled in an honourable and realistic manner. It is an immense problem but with goodwill and with a proper explanation of the problem to the workers as a whole, I am quite sure we can improve the lot of the lower-paid worker. The many trade unionists to whom I have spoken in recent times have indicated their satisfaction that a Minister of State should adopt this attitude. This indicates the type of man he is and the desire he has to help the weaker section of the community. I would ask the trade union officials, whatever the difficulties may be in relation to the variety of workers they represent, to give sympathetic consideration to this problem. I would ask the Minister again to do what he can to further this matter with Congress. I was glad to see responsible members of Congress indicate that they would tackle this problem. We can hope that in due course the lower-paid worker will get some satisfaction now that all the political Parties have expressed their concern and their support for the Minister's views.
As a worker, I know how workers are treated. Much can be done on the workshop floor by the employer in order to bring about better industrial relations. I do agree with some of the statements made that workers are regarded as ciphers and treated in a very impersonal way by employers. On the last occasion I was in a workshop I had a number just like a convict. When a man went along for his paypacket he gave his number; one would think he was never baptised judging by the manner in which the employer treated him. The dignity of the trade unionist is something that will have to be brought home to the employer. This can be done by providing jobs with more meaning, where a person can exercise his initative and his energy, instead of the soul-destroying jobs that at present occupy the attention of many workers. The employers and the trade union organisations can do much to create a better understanding between management and workers.
On the question of the various crafts and trades, in other sections of the community, people holding diplomas or certificates of one type or another receive special payments. Many craftsmen, in addition to serving their apprenticeship, embark on long periods of intensive study in order to perfect their craft, and it is suggested that the craftsmen should get allowances to encourage them to develop their skills and to increase their knowledge, thus benefiting the nation as a whole. The development of skilled labour is a factor that is not fully appreciated. The Industrial Training Authority has foreseen the necessity for additional crafts and skills in order to meet our current and future needs. I would suggest that, where possible, allowances would be given to tradesmen to encourage them to equip themselves adequately for the future.
We all want our share, and rightly so, of the prosperity that flows from the development of our skills and crafts. We must agree on how this can be attained. It is open to the people at the conference table to discover how the splitting of the cake can best be done to the benefit of those who by their labours produced the development and prosperity. There are a variety of factors and a variety of problems which must be tackled at the conference table if we are to have prolonged industrial stability. Many ways have been suggested. Comprehensive agreements is one of the suggestions made in relation to long-term industrial prosperity.
Debate adjourned.