Moving this amendment I referred to the fact that section 9 (c) has been debated in the House for quite a considerable period. It is an area of discrimination against male and female workers. We feel that as a result of this discrimination, and because no effort has been made by the Minister to ensure that this area would be sealed off so that discrimination could not take place, there must be a change in the wording of the Bill as indicated by the amendment. It is a very responsible amendment. If we are to take the long form of the title of the Bill it is:
An Act to ensure equal treatment, in relation to certain terms and conditions of employment, between men and women employed on like work.
This would give way to the change which we demand in the sub-title in section 13. We have discussed section 9 (c) fully. We have clearly indicated to the Minister, who has agreed that there is discrimination in this section, that if a Bill is to be termed an anti-discrimination Bill we want to ensure that it is, in fact, an anti-discrimination Bill. The Minister did not see fit to embody in the Bill wording that would clearly indicate that if a person was dismissed and took his claim to a court and established his claim after it had been processed by the court that that worker was then entitled to equal pay. If at that stage the Minister tells us it is unconstitutional to demand that the worker would be reinstated in his former position, surely there is an onus on us to protect the people who wish to avail of the legislation put through the House? It is rather amazing to find that we would bring in a Bill which would leave the way open to employers to dismiss a person because of his claim where the court had found that person was justified in the pursuance of that claim, and yet at the same time the person would be victimised because he could not have his employment back. For that reason, anti-discrimination is a contradiction in terms of what we have already discussed here today. The section on the Conditions of Employment (Equal Pay) Act would be more appropriate for that reason alone. The question of anti-discrimination must be complete and absolute. It is not so in this case. I would ask the Minister to indicate why this particular term was used and why the Bill which is discriminatory in itself is called the Anti-Discrimination (Pay) Bill.